|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, 7.5.
7.5 what again?
quote:
quote:
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether,
Straw man
It's not a straw man. The fact is that a male and a female can reproduce without further assistance. This does not equate to moral superiority or ethical necessity (it might well entail some responsibility, though...) but it is a biological capability not shared by other pairings. If you want to prove it's morally or ethically inferior, then you need to make your case.
quote:
quote:
If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese,
Straw man.
So out of curiosity, what do you think the benefits of Genesis are? What are we supposed to draw from it?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sorry, 7.5.
7.5 what again?
Billion, sorry. That should give you an ego boost. You seem to enjoy winning more than seeking truth.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If the human race ceases to reproduce altogether,
Straw man
It's not a straw man.
Do you know what a straw man is? It's presenting or refuting something as if it is your opponent's position. It is not my position that the human race can or should stop reproducing altogether. So it's a straw man.
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you think its main contribution is to fuel Marxism and thus upset the Chinese,
Straw man.
So out of curiosity, what do you think the benefits of Genesis are? What are we supposed to draw from it?
Why does it matter what I think? Do you want me to give my opinion so you can craft another straw man from it and drag the discussion even further off course?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still don't understand how you're arguing that Sarah and James aren't somehow closer to the Eden ideal and/or God's plan for humanity than Sarah and Jane. All other things being equal, aren't heterosexuals in at least one way fulfilling the plan whereas homosexuals clearly cannot whatever they do?
Confused. Are you arguing the point of this paragraph or against it? Your next paragraph seems to refute it.
If for it, my response is: Which plan? Reproducing? Is that God's plan for humankind, reproducing? What a dull God. Why even send Jesus if all we have to do is squeeze out babies?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I still don't understand how you're arguing that Sarah and James aren't somehow closer to the Eden ideal and/or God's plan for humanity than Sarah and Jane.
I think both couples might reflect different bits of his plan - and/or of human "fallenness". quote:
All other things being equal
There's the rub, though: they aren't. A few posts up I coined the term "biological privilege". Like lots of other forms of privilege, people tend to confuse privilege with moral superiority, which is a mistake. I need to think some more about this.
It strikes me that the issue of whether biologically reproducing is inherently, morally, ethically important to us as a species and the extent to which social change impacts this, in particular, deserves more thought than I believe this Hell thread can allow.
quote:
aren't heterosexuals in at least one way fulfilling the plan whereas homosexuals clearly cannot whatever they do?
I had to think about this one too, and I think the answer is no, they aren't, not automatically. They might enjoy various forms of privilege but they're not "fulfilling the plan" merely by virtue of being straight, getting married, or having children.
quote:
To me this feels like you're saying to a gay person "look, I'm sorry about your sexuality - something got messed up by the fall, and fortunately I've somehow missed getting what you've got. I'm no better than you are, but the fact still remains that you're living proof of the fall in a way that I'm not".
The rightness or wrongness of sexuality is to do with a whole lot more than gay or straight. And I'm doubtless living proof of the fall in a way you're not. "Getting what you've got"? I don't think sexual orientation is a disease.
quote:
Why even say that? Why not stick to the internal spiritual stuff; we're all messed up inside, it isn't just you or you or you - it is part of the human condition. Nothing to do with external stuff, nothing about your skin colour, your clothing choices, your hairstyle, foot size, sexuality or disability. Those are all things you can do nothing about, but God doesn't look at those things, he's interested in the heart.
I probably would say something much along those lines; but not if I was responding to Steve Langton.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Confused. Are you arguing the point of this paragraph or against it? Your next paragraph seems to refute it.
I'm trying to understand Eutychus' position, as he seems to be both saying that homosexuality is a result of the fall and that it doesn't really matter.
quote:
If for it, my response is: Which plan? Reproducing? Is that God's plan for humankind, reproducing? What a dull God. Why even send Jesus if all we have to do is squeeze out babies?
The more I think about it, the less I believe that our physical existence is fallen. I just don't see it in the environment; it doesn't look like something bodged together or that has become corrupted from a previous ideal.
The general weirdness we see in nature looks less like a fault and more like an intentional feature to me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is not my position that the human race can or should stop reproducing altogether. So it's a straw man.
quote:
One might say that non-productive pairings are in fact to be preferred at this stage in the human story.
Go for it. Spell out how this works and how it is decided who gets the "non-preferred" role of breeders.
Reproducing might not be "all we're about" but without it, we're nothing at all. How do you solve this conundrum? See my musings on biological reproduction in my previous post. This seems pretty central to me.
quote:
Do you want me to give my opinion so you can craft another straw man from it and drag the discussion even further off course?
No, I wish you'd have let me respond to RooK's jibe without further comment. I was stupid to rise to the bait. Happy now? You seem to enjoy winning more than seeking truth.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The rightness or wrongness of sexuality is to do with a whole lot more than gay or straight. And I'm doubtless living proof of the fall in a way you're not. "Getting what you've got"? I don't think sexual orientation is a disease.
You said some interesting things that I need to think some more about. But this point stood out: I think you absolutely are saying that sexual orientation is a disease. You're saying it in different terms, but fairly obviously if it is suboptimal and a result of the fall - then it is something that wasn't intended and is therefore a kind of disease.
I can't think of anything else where we'd say that one was in a particular suboptimal situation that wasn't the intent which isn't somehow a form of disease.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Go argue with some people on the autism spectrum.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Autism seems to me to be a medical condition. Is it not?
I was thinking maybe poor eyesight isn't a disease on account of having technology which can correct it. Maybe something stops being a condition/disease/illness when the person who has it is able to control it to the extent of it having no lasting impact on their lives.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But maybe therein is the difference between a negative result of the fall on one hand, and homosexuality on the other if we're really needing that kind of language.
Fairly obviously the latter doesn't need any correcting.
True, the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a homosexual. But then the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a prison chaplain. I'm not sure why this is such a philosophical problem to overcome.
The question is not whether reproducing is bad (clearly it isn't) but whether not-reproducing is inherently bad/fallen. I don't think the latter idea follows from the former.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Not a medical condition, but a mental condition, 'present from early childhood, characterized by great difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people, and in using language and abstract concepts.'
(A local fundamentalist church got into trouble with the Advertising Standards Agency by claiming to be able to 'cure' autism, as though it were a physical illness.)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
At the risk of derailing this thread still further, I recall previous Hell debates where people on the autistic spectrum vigorously defended their identity as not being a condition, disorder, etc. I can't remember the preferred term but there was one.
quote:
True, the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a homosexual. But then the human race wouldn't survive if everyone was a prison chaplain. I'm not sure why this is such a philosophical problem to overcome.
Because the latter is a temporary role while sexual orientation is a central, immutable component of one's identity (at least for some people), and heterosexual intercourse is bound up to some extent with survival of the species in a way prison chaplaincy is not.
But I have run out of brain cells for now (I have already had enough of prison cells for one day as it happens).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because the latter is a temporary role while sexual orientation is a central, immutable component of one's identity (at least for some people), and heterosexual intercourse is bound up to some extent with survival of the species in a way prison chaplaincy is not.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning for that to be a personal remark, I clearly could have used anything there. The point being that we actually need a range of people doing a range of things for the community to survive, and any community where everyone only does one thing isn't going to continue for long.
Yes, of course I understand about making babies. But society is more than the ability of every member within it to reproduce, surely. Do we not need a complex range of people with a range of reproductive abilities, just like we need a range of people with other abilities?
A society made up of people over 90 isn't going to reproduce. But we wouldn't say that people over 90 are therefore somehow "bad" on a whole societal level because they can't reproduce, would we?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The question is not whether reproducing is bad (clearly it isn't) but whether not-reproducing is inherently bad/fallen. I don't think the latter idea follows from the former.
Elaborating on this point:
Apparently after the resurrection there will be no marriage or giving in marriage.
Jesus does not elaborate on the implications for sexuality or reproduction.
[ 29. May 2017, 21:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A society made up of people over 90 isn't going to reproduce. But we wouldn't say that people over 90 are therefore somehow "bad" on a whole societal level because they can't reproduce, would we?
They're a result of the fall, clearly. Before the fall, EVERYBODY could reproduce.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Go for it. Spell out how this works and how it is decided who gets the "non-preferred" role of breeders.
Reproducing might not be "all we're about" but without it, we're nothing at all. How do you solve this conundrum? See my musings on biological reproduction in my previous post. This seems pretty central to me.
There's no need for me to solve it. There are breeders and there are non-breeders. I don't throw those dice. I don't see why you think we should have some kind of externally decided choosing.
The human race doesn't seem to be in any imminent or long-term danger of ceasing to reproduce at replacement levels or better. Do you see any indications of such a thing that I am missing?
quote:
You seem to enjoy winning more than seeking truth.
Well aren't you the clever parrot.
[ 29. May 2017, 21:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course there are examples of thriving cultures that have done without Genesis. It was a cheap shot in retort to a cheap shot. Unless of course you are moving to redefine the Christian canon to exclude it?
I don't think it was a cheap shot. Hyperbolic overload, perhaps, but containing an essential point. The Bible isn't an instruction manual and it wasn't written by God. Even looking at it as inspired by God, here is a load of material that was apologetic in nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality. One, it is a categorical misunderstand of the way evolution works.
Two, there is a solid body of evidence to suggest having homosexuality as part of a set of behaviours is an evolutionary advantage for many species. Including humans.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
They're a result of the fall, clearly. Before the fall, EVERYBODY could reproduce.
Oh yes, durr.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At the risk of derailing this thread still further, I recall previous Hell debates where people on the autistic spectrum vigorously defended their identity as not being a condition, disorder, etc. I can't remember the preferred term but there was one.
Neuro-atypical, perhaps?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
As the Genesis story, it was all blow jobs and masturbation before the Fall. The snake is symbolic of Adam's penis, and the problem is that Eve bit Adam's left nut for which the apple is symbol. This was not enjoyed by the ever-watching God.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As the Genesis story, it was all blow jobs and masturbation before the Fall. The snake is symbolic of Adam's penis, and the problem is that Eve bit Adam's left nut for which the apple is symbol. This was not enjoyed by the ever-watching God.
I could really enjoy sermons at your church, I think.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mr cheesy--
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The more I think about it, the less I believe that our physical existence is fallen. I just don't see it in the environment; it doesn't look like something bodged together or that has become corrupted from a previous ideal.
Things that would qualify for my previously mentioned idea of fallen as either evolutionary growing pains or something like the Genesis Fall:
--Parasitic wasps, and other horrors in the insect world (which would probably make Stephen King run away screaming);
--Creatures which eat their mates and/or young;
--Life feeding off death by actively causing death, not just waiting for something to die;
--Strangler figs;
--Sexual assault and rape among animals;
--Diseases.
Those are just a few.
quote:
The general weirdness we see in nature looks less like a fault and more like an intentional feature to me.
For me, that depends on the kind of weirdness. The things I mentioned just above are faults, IMHO. But there are all sorts of other wild and wonderful weirdness:
--Dung beetles use the Milky Way for navigation (Mental Floss)
--Extremophiles, which are creatures that live and thrive in extreme conditions, where life shouldn't be possible;
--Animals that change gender when their group don't have enough of a particular gender;
--Deep-sea creatures that provide their own light;
--Butterflies;
--Trees communicate with each other via their roots and a fungal network, and "Dying Trees Can Send Food to Neighbors of Different Species" (Scientific American).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
My, this is exciting. The conversation has really taken off WITHOUT the couple of utterly tiresome people who made the whole thing deeply sour.
Anyway, just popping in to say I will post more podcast info when I'm home this evening.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Things that would qualify for my previously mentioned idea of fallen as either evolutionary growing pains or something like the Genesis Fall:
--Parasitic wasps, and other horrors in the insect world (which would probably make Stephen King run away screaming);
--Creatures which eat their mates and/or young;
--Life feeding off death by actively causing death, not just waiting for something to die;
--Strangler figs;
--Sexual assault and rape among animals;
--Diseases.
Those are just a few.
About the only thing I would agree with you are (a) viruses and (b) diseases
Even these are not hard to see as a feature rather than a mistake.
quote:
For me, that depends on the kind of weirdness. The things I mentioned just above are faults, IMHO.
Almost none of those are faults. Talk to a biologist about whether there is anything positive about them or whether they just look like something corrupted.
quote:
But there are all sorts of other wild and wonderful weirdness:
--Dung beetles use the Milky Way for navigation (Mental Floss)
--Extremophiles, which are creatures that live and thrive in extreme conditions, where life shouldn't be possible;
--Animals that change gender when their group don't have enough of a particular gender;
--Deep-sea creatures that provide their own light;
--Butterflies;
--Trees communicate with each other via their roots and a fungal network, and "Dying Trees Can Send Food to Neighbors of Different Species" (Scientific American).
I don't accept your divisions between "weirdness" and "results of the fall". Totally bogus.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
About the only thing I would agree with you are (a) viruses and (b) diseases
Even these are not hard to see as a feature rather than a mistake.
(snip)
Almost none of those are faults. Talk to a biologist about whether there is anything positive about them or whether they just look like something corrupted.
(snip)
I don't accept your divisions between "weirdness" and "results of the fall". Totally bogus.
Well, I did say that it could be evolutionary growing pains. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As to features, and whether or not a biologist would say that something positive comes from what I call "faults":
ISTM that the faults that involve cruelty. Something positive does come from them--for the victor/perpetrator. The parasitic wasp's babies have a ready food source, but...
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
The things I consider to be wild and wonderful weirdness are things that, AFAIK and AIUI, don't involve cruelty. (Though I don't know what the gender switch is like for the animals that do it.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Doing the posting equivalent of thinking out loud a little...²
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, of course I understand about making babies. But society is more than the ability of every member within it to reproduce, surely. Do we not need a complex range of people with a range of reproductive abilities, just like we need a range of people with other abilities?
A society made up of people over 90 isn't going to reproduce. But we wouldn't say that people over 90 are therefore somehow "bad" on a whole societal level because they can't reproduce, would we?
I’ve been arguing all along that things are no longer as they were “in the beginning”.
One of the things that is clearly different is that we have society now.
In the Eden narrative, the world population is depicted as two. This narrative is at once an account of our origins and an account of why the world is in a mess.
I’m beginning to think that a lot of the problems lie in untangling those two strands.
Matters are not helped by Genesis 2:24, at the heart of our debate quote:
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh
being an interpolation into the Eden narrative, and thus being right on the boundary between the first outlines of social order that we still recognise today and an unrecoverable "warm, trembling, iridescent pool of... pre-Adamite consciousness¹".
Be all that as it may, I still can’t get away from the necessity of male and female to perpetuate the species:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality.
I just don't get this line of argument. How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
Of course there is more to society than breeding couples, but once again, there is no society without that. Other statuses and practices (including singlehood) may be important for society, but they can't perpetuate the human species. That is not a moral assertion but a scientific one.
==
¹CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength. I think Lewis might be part of my personal canon of Scripture...
²This has already taken me about an hour to come up with, and I'm still not satisfied with the result. Subject to review as time allows.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Society certainly could/would go on without 'breeding couples' - we have the technology. Technology which arose, one could argue, because humans are so good at society.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Be all that as it may, I still can’t get away from the necessity of male and How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
Of course there is more to society than breeding couples, but once again, there is no society without that. Other statuses and practices (including singlehood) may be important for society, but they can't perpetuate the human species. That is not a moral assertion but a scientific one.
No. Don't bring "science" into this. That's one huge red herring.
Nobody is arguing that there is society without breeding - if there are, I've never heard of them.
Perpetuating the species is not only to do with the individual who can reproduce. Meercats share the parenting of the young. Not all of them can reproduce. Bees have a single individual who does all the reproducing.
It doesn't follow that all the meercats or bees who are not reproducing or not able to reproduce are somehow inferior - of fallen - members of that society. Indeed, the society wouldn't function at all without all those non-breeders.
Human societies have always included members who have not been able to breed. That doesn't, hasn't made them any less important. And that includes a significant number of gay people - who have not been breeding, but have nonetheless brought many things for the betterment of society and humanity.
There is absolutely no sense that a non-breeding human is somehow less important than a breeding human. This is nonsense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is absolutely no sense that a non-breeding human is somehow less important than a breeding human.
If by important you mean of moral value, then of course not. But you are not going to have any humans at all if you start with non-breeders.
And that it seems to me is why Eden is depicted as having Adam and Eve, and a commandment to go forth and multiply.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If by important you mean of moral value, then of course not. But you are not going to have any humans at all if you start with non-breeders.
And that it seems to me is why Eden is depicted as having Adam and Eve, and a commandment to go forth and multiply.
OK. If one really must try to read things into the Genesis myth, it is true that we wouldn't be here if Adam and Eve had not been able to breed.
I don't see what that has to do with anything wrt whether homosexuals are part of fallen nature.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No-one bred Adam and Eve.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
No, but origins (mouseover text seems appropriate, too).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PODCAST
Right, so the thing I'm wittering on about is called "The Bible Project".
The main podcast page of their website, linking to audio, is here. Alternatively the page linking to iTunes etc is here.
They also do other things such as (much shorter) YouTube videos which I haven't actually looked at, even though the podcast episodes are described as companions to those videos. So keep in mind that's a shorter option.
If you want the super-duper, long form version I listened to, of a whole bunch of stuff about what the point of human beings and the creation of Earth is, there are 2 topics:
1. Heaven & Earth (3 episodes)
2. The Image of God (3 episodes)
Episodes are generally around 40 minutes long.
However, if you want to zoom in on what I felt was the most crucial bit of the argument that the world was not "perfect" before The Fall, I believe this was found in The Image of God Part 2.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but origins (mouseover text seems appropriate, too).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this feels like you're saying to a gay person "look, I'm sorry about your sexuality - something got messed up by the fall, and fortunately I've somehow missed getting what you've got. I'm no better than you are, but the fact still remains that you're living proof of the fall in a way that I'm not".
If I may leap to Eutychus's defence, although I understand how it sounds like that, I can see how that's not what he's saying.
As an illustration, rather than looking 'back' to Genesis, there's the example of Jesus being asked to look forward into the next age, when he's asked about marriage, and, if a woman marries a bunch of brothers, which will she be married to in the afterlife.
Jesus' response is essentially that the question is a category error. It won't work like that, and we can't understand it.
Now, we could take Jesus words to mean that human marriages don't matter, because in 'heaven', they won't be there any more. But most people don't do that. They take marriages very seriously, and what the status of the marriage is in the afterlife doesn't affect the importance of marriage now.
That's similar to how I read Eutychus's words. He's saying the same kind of thing that Jesus was saying in that passage. In answer to the question "If the archetypal relationship in Eden was heterosexual, does that nullify, or at least lessen the status of homosexual relationships now?", his answer is similarly, 'category error'. The universe of 'Eden', like the universe of 'The Age to Come' is so different to the universe of Now, that it's a nonsensical question.
I dunno if I agree with him. I'm not a big fan of 'Fall' theology, but I can see what he's saying. And I don't think that his view lessens homosexual relationships.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Thanks orfeo! I'll give them a listen.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If I may leap to Eutychus's defence, although I understand how it sounds like that, I can see how that's not what he's saying.
Yes, thank you, it's really encouraging to see someone at least able to reformulate what I've been trying to say
ETA: Nick (and everyone else), to save you 30 minutes of your life, the relevant bit starts 30 minutes into part 2. I found what followed that point to be far more germane than what went before.
[ 30. May 2017, 11:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
if you want to zoom in on what I felt was the most crucial bit of the argument that the world was not "perfect" before The Fall, I believe this was found in The Image of God Part 2.
Thanks for this - as noted above, the relevant part starts at around the 30-minute mark.
I'm not sure there was much that was new to my ears here, but it did offer some interesting ways forward.
- Before listening to this, I was already saying (to lilbuddha) that my preferred word for Eden was "good" rather than "perfect". The podcast articulated some more good reasons for doing so.
- While the podcast may mark a useful shift in emphasis for those Christians brought up in an atmosphere of constant condemnation¹ to a perspective of seeing the world as a potential place for good to happen, it by no means abandons the concept of the "Fall".
(Indeed, I think their take in this respect very much resembles mine as stated here).
- one line of thought it did throw up for me was the distinction drawn between the "Fall" as a moral failure on the part of humankind with respect to God and the idea of the "Fall" also being some all-creation-impacting-earthquake-provoking-earth-tilting-lion-devegetarianising event - which led to the further thought that perhaps the "gay-creating" narrative might be part of the latter perspective, and not the former...
I'll admit to this distinction being an area that's not very clear in my mind as yet.
It seems to me that "Fall" extends, at least indirectly, beyond simply "man rebelled against God": affecting relationships, and with at least some physical consequences - that certainly seems to be the implication in the post-Fall curse, and the way Paul sees creation groaning in Romans 8:20-21 suggests at least knock-on effects on the wider world. More thought required in this respect - another post I'm not entirely satisfied with.
=
¹As an aside, I'm sure our different backgrounds go some way to explaining our various takes, and also our various epidermic reactions, to this topic.
[ 30. May 2017, 12:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
=
¹As an aside, I'm sure our different backgrounds go some way to explaining our various takes, and also our various epidermic reactions, to this topic.
The epidermis is the outer layer of cells, or skin, of a living organism. So what is an epidermic reaction?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
A mistranslation. Read: instinctive.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Another thing I don't really understand about the fall; if the assumption is that everything is broken, then I don't understand how one can have any trust in anything.
Calvinists sometimes go on about absolute depravity (which I know is sometimes mischaracterised by critics), but surely if the whole of nature is corrupted, knocked off beam, subtly (or not so subtly) screwed - then surely humanity wouldn't be able to ever do anything right. Everything we touched would turn to shit, wouldn't it?
I'm sure we can talk here about God's grace, but if it is argued that it is God's grace which allows genocidical maniacs to (sometimes) do good things, then we appear to be arguing that "the fall" is not, in fact, a done deal and that humanity is not, in fact, incapable of doing anything good. Does it not then follow that nature cannot be good for humanity? That mankind ought to only face hostility from the broken environment in which we find ourselves?
It seems like you're saying that the fall threw up all kinds of unwanted stuff - including homosexuality - but it isn't really that bad and by grace we can see the good in it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The Fall™ doesn't mean we can't ever do anything good, it means that we have "fallen out" ![[Cool]](cool.gif) with God and none of the good we do can in and of itself restore that relationship. We elect to play God ourselves (that's the take on the podcast - have you listened to it?). Since we are in his image, we are still capable of good - but not capable of doing good alone.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems like you're saying that the fall threw up all kinds of unwanted stuff - including homosexuality - but it isn't really that bad and by grace we can see the good in it.
I wouldn't use precisely those words - I might want to add "including naff heterosexual relations", for a start - but I think that's pretty much where I'm at, yes.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Calvinists sometimes go on about absolute depravity (which I know is sometimes mischaracterised by critics), but surely if the whole of nature is corrupted, knocked off beam, subtly (or not so subtly) screwed - then surely humanity wouldn't be able to ever do anything right. Everything we touched would turn to shit, wouldn't it?
It's total depravity, not absolute depravity. And in this context, "total" means "all-pervasive," not "complete," and "depravity" is probably closer to "infected" than "depraved."
It doesn't mean that all of nature is corrupt; it means that there is no part of human nature that isn't touched, however slightly, by the effects of sinfulness. Nor does it mean that everything we touch turns to shit. It means that even when we do good—even when we do really good—our motives and actions are tainted in some way by sin, such as concern for self (not unlike psychological egoism.)
In other words, it means that there is no aspect of our lives where we don't need the grace of God. That's the point of total depravity.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Most sex is non-reproductive. It is about enhancing pair-bonds, ergo love, between people. It makes no difference the gender of the lovers, so long as there's mutuality of pleasure and love. -- which summarizes my full understanding. The only warning about sex is not to manipulate, deceive nor exploit.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Fall™ doesn't mean we can't ever do anything good, it means that we have "fallen out" with God and none of the good we do can in and of itself restore that relationship. We elect to play God ourselves (that's the take on the podcast - have you listened to it?). Since we are in his image, we are still capable of good - but not capable of doing good alone.
Yes, I listened to it all but dozed until the bit that you mentioned above. Even that didn't seem all that surprising to me.
I can understand your other comments above if we were only talking about a spiritual fall. But you seem to be wedded to the idea that the whole of nature fell. I don't understand what that means if there is included in that idea a bunch of nature that isn't fallen.
Surely it is either fallen or not. It is either infected with the virus of fallenness or it isn't. How can it be a bit or indescriminately fallen?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems like you're saying that the fall threw up all kinds of unwanted stuff - including homosexuality - but it isn't really that bad and by grace we can see the good in it.
I wouldn't use precisely those words - I might want to add "including naff heterosexual relations", for a start - but I think that's pretty much where I'm at, yes.
I still just can't get arms around this idea of yours, it seems nonsensical. First you say there is this thing called the fall, which means everything we see is suboptimal. Not as intended.
Next you say that homosexuality is part of that; it wasn't the original intention, it wasn't what God had in mind. Also like a bunch of other human stuff.
But then you don't seem to want to make the logical leap to saying that wholesome heterosexual relationships are always better than any homosexual relationships - because they reflect the original pre-fall intentions of God.
As you're not saying that, I can't see the point of bringing it up, never mind believing it. It just seems stupid to me, unless you are also saying that all things - including heterosexual relationships, old age, etc etc are all results of the fall that we have to live with. In which case the whole point of saying it seems redundant.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's total depravity, not absolute depravity. And in this context, "total" means "all-pervasive," not "complete," and "depravity" is probably closer to "infected" than "depraved."
It doesn't mean that all of nature is corrupt; it means that there is no part of human nature that isn't touched, however slightly, by the effects of sinfulness. Nor does it mean that everything we touch turns to shit. It means that even when we do good—even when we do really good—our motives and actions are tainted in some way by sin, such as concern for self (not unlike psychological egoism.)
Well that's where I can't compute Calvinism. If everything is infected, then it doesn't have to be "absolutely" deprived, it just has to be enough deprived to be knocked off God's original intention, which is surely enough to be impossible to do anything good.
I can't see how it can be "totally deprived" and still capable of good things.
And anyway, the point I was trying to make was with regard to nature and all things. If they're knocked off kilter, I can't see how they can just be slightly trickier for humanity.
quote:
In other words, it means that there is no aspect of our lives where we don't need the grace of God. That's the point of total depravity.
OK. Well that seems to me to be utter gibberish, a result of the theology of the fall, which also seems to me to be nonsensical.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can understand your other comments above if we were only talking about a spiritual fall. But you seem to be wedded to the idea that the whole of nature fell.
I think that the Fall had at least knock-on effects on nature, if only due to our bad stewardship of it. My personal jury is out on things like disease and genetic malformations at this point. quote:
Surely it is either fallen or not. It is either infected with the virus of fallenness or it isn't.
If the Fall is moral only and nature is morally neutral, it can be affected by the fall but not itself be fallen.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
First you say there is this thing called the fall, which means everything we see is suboptimal. Not as intended.
Everything with a moral component is morally suboptimal. Not sure beyond that.
quote:
But then you don't seem to want to make the logical leap to saying that wholesome heterosexual relationships are always better than any homosexual relationships - because they reflect the original pre-fall intentions of God.
That's because all relationships are affected by our "fallenness". There is no such thing as a perfectly wholesome heterosexual relationship either now. The sexual orientation doesn't make it inherently better (or worse).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
It's total depravity, not absolute depravity. And in this context, "total" means "all-pervasive," not "complete," and "depravity" is probably closer to "infected" than "depraved."
It doesn't mean that all of nature is corrupt; it means that there is no part of human nature that isn't touched, however slightly, by the effects of sinfulness. Nor does it mean that everything we touch turns to shit. It means that even when we do good—even when we do really good—our motives and actions are tainted in some way by sin, such as concern for self (not unlike psychological egoism.)
Well that's where I can't compute Calvinism. If everything is infected, then it doesn't have to be "absolutely" deprived, it just has to be enough deprived to be knocked off God's original intention, which is surely enough to be impossible to do anything good.
I can't see how it can be "totally deprived" and still capable of good things.
That's because (understandably—I don't know why a different term wasn't used, but there it is) you're interpreting "total" to mean something it doesn't mean in this context. As I said above, it doesn't mean absolute and complete, like "total destruction." It means "relating to or affecting to whole." When you say quote:
[i]f everything is infected . . . it just has to be enough deprived to be knocked off God's original intention,
you are saying exactly what is meant by total depravity. "Total" simply means everything is infected, or affected, even if only slightly.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality.
I just don't get this line of argument. How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
No one has made this argument.
Evolution¹ is not about individuals reproducing, it is about species² survival. As mr cheesy mentions, there are many examples in nature where individuals do not contribute their personal genes.³ Studies suggest that homosexuals in families added extra providers without contributing their own resource intensive offspring. In other words, a feature not a bug.
¹ Evolution isn't actually about anything, it has no purpose. It is merely the description of how random mutations work.
² Species, not the obfuscation of "society"
³ Familial genetic lines are a subset of the species imperative. At least in humans.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I dunno if I agree with him. I'm not a big fan of 'Fall' theology, but I can see what he's saying. And I don't think that his view lessens homosexual relationships.
It does, though. No matter how you slice it homosexuality, in his view, is still a less than.
The equation you describe is homo<hetero<Heaven.
That he also describes broken hetero=homo doesn't change the basic equation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
An addendum to address the "effects of the Fall on nature" rubbish.
Species exist because of mutation. There is no plan, there is no purpose. Diseases exist because the lifeforms that cause them chanced into a survival strategy. Parasites are a result in the same processes that generated humans.
How you fit God into that is your business, but how you have done it is the genesis of Christian homophobia. At least in part.
As we begin to understand the nature of our planet, we find that whilst the geologic processed can be destructive, they are also a key to life arising in the first place.
In other words, the perfect planet is an imperfect one.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, this biological reality does not confer moral superiority.
It is not a biological reality.
I just don't get this line of argument. How is it not a biological reality that only a man and a woman can produce a baby without any outside intervention?
No one has made this argument.
You appeared to be denying - and still don't seem to have acknowledged - the biological reality to which I was originally referring: that, uniquely, "male-plus-female pairings... perpetuate the species".
Other factors may come into play, but naturally speaking, a man and a women producing a baby is an unavoidable part of that process (which, inter alia, would go a long way to explaining the existence of this archetype).
I don't see how your hand-waving gets around that, and your reluctance to acknowledge it is perplexing.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
