Plognark

That sounds consistent to me. I think the major issue being that most of the major religions have some serious problems with homosexuality.

It's got to be really tough to stick with your religion when it says that you're a hellbound sinner for following your nature :huh:

I'd say it has to do more with the nature of the religion than one's orientation, and so does your generalization.

jbernier

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that I realized that Neorask's leaky dike has long since broken and that a brand new structure was needed. I suspect that Neorask and I are operating on very different epistemological assumptions.

Fair enough - and I appreciate your frankness upon how you are jumping into the discussion.

Absolutely. I did not come to it overnight. These ideas have been percolating throughout my undergraduate degree in Anthropology and my subsequent graduate work in Religious Studies.

Agreed. When I talk about a "human condition" I mean, in effect, what "Does it mean to be human?" There is a definite evolutionary dimension to my thinking here: That the human organism is the product of evolutionary processes and that this has to a very large extent (perhaps a total extent) shaped what we have become. Indeed, I would argue that anything which is said to be intrinsic to being human must, by definition, be the product of evolution. You would have no argument here.

I will admit that my anthropological training focused much more on the evolution of the human skeleton - after all, physical anthropologists do not dig brains out of the ground but rather skeletons, etc. No question I know relatively less about the evolution of the brain.

I would, however, not see this as opposed to what I am arguing but rather complementary. My ideas have come from my studies of human history and society, as well as philosophical reading (such as Rene Girard, Emile Durkheim and Soren Kierkegaard, all of whom have played a significant role in my thinking). Evolutionary studies tell us how we got to be how we are - and undoubtedly that is important.

The question was "Do you have evidence that counters my argument about the human condition?" Your evidence to counter my argument is that my argument is faulty. That is not evidence - that is assertion.

Two problems, vis-a-vis traditional Christian theology. First, "image of God" is the language of mimesis, imitation - not identical copy. Thus one cannot blithely argue that what one sees in the human is identical to the divine. Second, traditional theology has the idea of a fall, so that the human is now a distorted image of the divine.

Now, I have no problem saying that I am not a traditional theologian (or that traditional theology has gotten certain of its own premises horribly wrong). I am primarily interested in how the Biblical texts speak to what it means to be human (primarily as an exegete and historian and only secondarily as a theologian). I have no problem reading the story of the fall as 'myth' in the sense of being 'story.' That is, I see this as narratological anthropology, a description of human existence told in narrative form.

Again, I see this work as complementary, not opposed, to what I am arguing.

Again, how does this oppose my argument? One can observe rivalry among primate groups, particularly over food and mates. This fits quite well with what I have argued, indeed suggesting that the self-interest which I have suggested lies at the root of our problems is a product of our evolution. I would argue that the development of both language and organized social structure was precisely a means to mitigate these conflicts.

More to the point, the very premises of Darwinian thought support my argument (indeed, in some ways my argument about human existence is essentially Darwinian). Darwinian thought - particularly natural selection - rests upon the assumption that individuals are inherently self-interested and work for their own advantage. That is precisely what I am arguing? On this I am a good Darwinian.

I would agree that genetics and social conditioning explain the vast amount of our behaviours. What I am challenging is the idea that we need to explain violence as the exception and suggesting that violence (or competition, in Darwinian terms) is the norm and that states of non-violence are the exceptional states which need to be explained. Basically I am suggesting that the real problem, in light of Darwinian theory, is not "Why is there evil in the world?" but rather "Why is there good?"

And I would have no problem with that - in fact, it is essentially what I am arguing. I apologize if I have been unclear about that.

I would suggest that all acts of 'random' violence in some way go back to the 'survival drive' or 'individual vested interests' - these are just not readily apparent.

Again, I agree fully (although I am less inclined to see a clear distinction between 'reason' and 'emotions', but that is another discussion).

Sure it has, although it certainly is to be found in the gospels. However, I am not arguing simply for the Golden Rule but for a larger framework in which that phrase takes on a specific content and association that it might not otherwise have.

I would argue that the 'Golden Rule,' if properly practiced, perhaps does originate in self-interest but leads ultimately to a subversion thereof. That is to say, it is turned back on itself. In terms of the gospel, as I understand it, the Golden Rule is possible through a double movement: 1) We identify the crucified Christ with all potential victims; 2) We identify ourselves with the crucified Christ, thus identifying ourselves with all potential victims. Thus, whenever we act towards another, we must ask "Am I making this person a victim, for if I am then I am making Christ and thus myself a victim." So it is not simply because you want something in return; it is because you imagine yourself in the place of that person. It is a movement towards being for the other, not simply for yourself - which is a movement beyond self-interest.

jbernier

I would tend to agree, although I'd be interested in seeing statistics on this point.

I think it would also depend upon the religious options in one's region. For instance, I suspect that a greater percentage of openly homosexual individuals would also be practicing Christians here in Canada where our largest Protestant denominations has been ordaining homosexual men and women for two decades and was very publicly in support of same-sex marriage. Anyplace where such options occur I think you would see a significant amount of movement between denominations as much as departures from the religion entirely.

TomboyMom

mods--derailment alert.
(Although, ironically, I believe the OP was spawned from a thread on morality of homosexuality.)
Anyway, another factor could be that people who are accustomed to questioning and rejecting accepted thinking and practices in one area are more likely to do so in another.

TomboyMom

Anyone remember whether there has been a basic sexual preference poll in The Lounge?

sharon45

Again, no. 'Paul' speaks on his own behalf, he didn't speak for christians of the time and neither did the gospels, they all speak their own personal version of what they think christianity is or should be, but they were just a small percentage of claimed christians with opinions. Most of these sources have no real understanding of their chosen impossible task, or else they wouldn't even have attempted it. As I stated, they are trying to pass off something for 'sale', but it is only a pretense that those that 'buy' are all equal, and church history shows a lot of why.



Of course I know there are strides in the direction of what is presumed as equality, but even in those cases, mostly in order to try in one area, more others fall further back. Equality is hardly about numbers, that is far too basic. While the real problem is an ever evolving one, the more it is focused on, the more complicated it is realized.



Yes, of course it does, but it would have helped some on your part to haved presented much more and to be on topic for it to be deemed worthy of a more detailed explanation.



I have given many an argument already. I have been debating this in different forms for a long time. By now, I more wait for something that is worth my time especially with the impossible task of proving the bible to be true. Anyone seriously reading carefully through the whole bible would know that the 'old' and 'new' testaments do not connect. That is why the best argument against the bible is the bible itself. This wasn't the point of this thread though to prove against the bible.

jbernier

My apologies - I had not read your initial derailment alert.

jbernier

All of which might be quite true but is completely irrelevant to what I posted, which was an exegesis of a certain passage from Galatians. btw, I am not sure why you put Paul in quotation marks as I know of no scholar who has argued that Galatians was not written by the historical figure of Paul.

If there was insufficient argumentation presented for it to be "worthy of a more detailed explanation" then it would not follow that there was insufficient data to reject the argument? I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot here. btw, your "of course it does" is a tacit acknowledge of my statement that I presented sufficient reasoned argumentation to warrant such a response. I think you might be shooting the other foot, now.

Really? I have not seen no evidence of this.

So you admit that you have ruled out the possibility that one can 'prove the Bible to be true' a priori. What is the point of entering into discussion about this with you, as you have already decided that any argument I will put forth must be wrong for I arguing an impossibility?

Ah, the old "anyone seriously reading" argument: i.e. if you disagree with me it is because you have done your homework. Of course, the problem here is that I, a M.A. student in Biblical Studies in a non-confessional, state-funded, public, university has done my homework - so this argument (which is really an ad hominen and thus already a logical fallacy) falls flat on its face.

Of course, asking "Do the Old and New Testaments connect?" is not the same question as "Is the Bible true?" What you are really doing here is substituting one question for another (btw, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the thought of the Old and New Testaments stand in far greater continuity than most people - including most scholars and devout Christians - generally perceive. That might just be because I am ignorant, though - not because I read, study, write about and teach the Biblical texts for a living). More than anything, I am making an anthropological argument: That when taken as a series of texts that have something to say about human existence, the Biblical texts offer remarkable insight into what it means to be human.

jbernier

Fair enough. I should be clear: I see 'authority' as mostly an institutionalization or formalization of structure. I would suggest that structurally people are most closely bound in the wake of disaster and more loosely bound when things are going well. I would agree that this could be just because we notice it more at such times; however, I find the idea that this is not just the appearance of closer bounds but closer bounds in actuality (i.e. if it looks like closer bounds, walks like closer bounds, then it is probably closer bounds).

Let us stress the 'recent,' though. I would agree that there is an increasing movement towards increasing aid of others. I would suggest that this movement has been going on for centuries and is becoming increasingly noticeable. What I am asking is the origin of this movement.

Not if authorities are merely the formalization of informal structures that have already evolved. I should have been more clear about how I imagine the relation between 'authority' and 'structure'; sorry for the ambiguity.

I do not recall saying that people inherently dislike authority; I apologize if I did so indirectly or inadvertantly as that is not what I am arguing.

I would agree that people like to have authority. Where I differ is this idea that it is preferred by the good majority who are afraid of the "anti-social minority." Rather I suggest that they like it because it protects them from everyone. As I have said elsewhere, this is very consistent with the Darwinian idea of constant competition between human individuals.

Again, my bad for not clarifying how I see the relation between these terms.

This still begs the question of how the exceptional anti-social individual comes to be (and since the anti-social individual is defined in opposition to the social it is clear that it is the anti-social that is posited as exceptional).

So the anti-social is not the exception? This is very similar to my argument. If authority is to protect us from the anti-social and we are all anti-social to some extent or another then authority is to protect us from everyone.

Not at all. It is the logical extension of your argument. If harmony is the norm and the anti-social the exception then must be something abnormal about the anti-social. Perhaps 'abnormal' is a better term for what you are arguing but it is at least implicit in your argument.

If society produces the anti-social individual (through socialization, I presume) then we must acknowledge that society contains within itself the possibility of creating its own opposition. Now, if authority is that within society is to guard against the anti-social individual and the anti-social individual has been produced by society itself then authority is merely society guarding against itself. We can quibble over whether or not 'defective' best describes this but, at the very least, it does not seem like the outrighting of a naturally harmonious humanity.

Evidently I have been less than fully clear. We do tend towards competition and social disintegration and that is why structures have developed to put a check on these tendencies. I will acknowledge that you have a point: That does this speak to some sort of desire for harmony. However, I would argue that this is primarily a self-centred desire: That harmony makes my life easier and therefore I favour it.

This is a bit of a move from your original position, in which you posited a discrete "anti-social minority" that the majority needed to be protected from. In this articulation I think we are substantial agreement: The only difference is that I would emphasize what you call the "anti-social" norm whereas you appear to emphasize what I suppose we could call the "social" norm.

I will admit that I have a selective interpretation, for all interpretations are by definition selective in the they arrange the available evidence. Sure the synoptic gospels make some references to Hades and Gehenna (note that there is no clear reference to these concepts in GofJohn). However, I would argue that they are not a significant aspect of New Testament theology; they are more far significant in later Christian (particularly Western, i.e. RC and Protestant) theology then the Biblical texts. I would suggest that "eternal" most properly refers to a quality of life rather than a quantity. That is, they are a recognition of the isolation, loneliness and despair intrinsic in a wholly self-centred existence.

Buffman

I agree....to both contentions.

I have this, sometimes irritating, tendency to jump into discussions that seem to be all personal opinion and little, if any, verifiable evidence being presented. (Thank you for appreciating my "frankness.")

You have posted that information before. Do you believe that it helps to establish and qualify you as more of "an authority" on this issue than everyone else? These issues have been "percolating" throughout my undergraduate-graduate degrees, as well as my real world observations and experiences, for nearly 70 years. So?


Not by my definition is that necessarily the only part of the human condition! You seem to be saying that human beings are instinctual. I have not found that to be the case. Do humans have genetic senses and drives? Yes, they most certainly do. However, humans can not build, as a bird can, a nest from a mental blueprint passed on to them through their genes. However, physical blueprints can be, and are, passed on, learned and often modified. Additionally, humans can premeditatively plan and intentionally kill themselves. Is that an intrinsic characteristic over which we have no control? (Big issue for a different forum/thread.)

One of the huge challenges we "all" face is collating the latest accurate knowledge of the many scientific disciplines and sub-specialties into a coherent picture of the whole. How much "Comparative Anatomy" have you studied? (Not just human bones with human bones, but human bones with the bones of other, formerly, living organisms.) Additionally, bones may be able to talk to those specifically trained to understand what they say, but the interpreters can only guess, rather than accurately tell us, how the body those bones supported actually utilized its bio-chemical processes to think and do whatever it (they) did. Is that not so?

Not all that surprisingly, every book I have ever read, every situation I have physically encountered, everything I have ever studied, heard/seen/felt/ tasted/smelled have contributed to what I think today. However, the critical reasoning process demands that they all be placed in their specific historical context and constantly reviewed for accurate applicability to the present verified knowledge/situation. (The "Cold Case Files" TV show is a good example of how we can take today's accurate knowledge to go back and solve some of the mysteries/falsehoods of the past.)--- Evolutionary studies do not, yet, accurately tell us how we got to be how we are. They have barely pointed us in the direction most likely to look to find the accurate answers. Isn't that why religious faith beliefs and scientific knowledge are often at odds? --- There have been many humans deserving of the label Philosopher. However, over time, there have been many schools of philosophy...schools which have often been at odds with one another just as religious faith beliefs have been at odds with one another...while evolution marches along undeterred by one school or another, one religious belief or another.

True! However, even though you concurred, you seem to have forgotten this statement: I have often wished that there was a easy and accurate response to this kind of statement. There isn't. The issue is extremely complex. (The considerable amplification and supporting data will not be found here.) --- Asking a question is the easy and quick part. Answering it isn't...especially if the question is based on a faulty original premise. Any feeble attempt by me to counter your argument about the human condition would involve and require far more time and effort than I am willing to sacrifice to do so. Were I to even begin to do so, I would request that you provide me with your definition of the "human condition" in order that we can start from an agreed point. I seem to recall having made such a request. What, exactly, IS meant by the "Human Condition?" I await YOUR directed response.

Hmmmmm? So what are you saying? That the words of the English Bible are not an accurate reflection of their meaning? And exactly which human decides that which is/is not "mimesis?" Perhaps it was the same humans that decided which ancient religious writings were divinely inspired and which were not. Those that mimicked their realities were divine and those that did not weren't? But these were superstitious men in a superstitions age. Their concept of reality is not my concept. So I can "blithely" argue that many, certainly not all, realities were in the "human" minds of the beholders...and not validated realities at all...just more gaps in the known filled with superstitious answers. (My realities tell me that a great many good folks continue to do that even today.)

(Oh my!) Whose traditional theology makes this claim? So was it part of this particular traditional theology to distort the image of the divine..or just create a religious faith dichotomy/conundrum to distort the human mind?

OK! However, why not start first with studying the factors used to compile the document to which you are now applying your "exegete" prowess? Perhaps that would be like not studying how bones came into being rather than attempting to determine how they came to look as they do and be where they are.

Please take no offense, but that statement makes you appear to be more of a Deist than a Christian. However, in either case, you depend on a supernatural explanation for the "gaps."

And have absolutely nothing to do with supernatural intercessions. They are all human/mortal/mammalian constructs based on the survival/reproductive drives.

And Intelligent Design is merely the Creation Myth in different robes? --- Do you agree that Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest used to be the identical evolutionary path until man began to master his environment? If you do, can you see how that mastery can be either our worldly salvation or lead to a premature demise of our species? Can you then see why our species is inclined to seek a divine, supernatural, intervention to prevent the latter from being our ultimate lot?

http://www.bartleby.com/11/4003.html

Yes, I understand what you are contending. I simply view things in more basic terms... No Pain and Pain.Those were the real beginnings of the following. Right and Wrong. Good and Bad. Moral and Immoral. Sinless and Sinful. (I am not adequately qualified to accurately address your issue of violence because it can take far too many forms relative to other external, as well as internal, factors.)

No apology necessary. That with which I remain unclear is why humans need a belief in the supernatural in order to recognize what is or isn't in their best short/long term interests. Socialization, like so many things, follows its own evolutionary path.

IMHO, acts of "random violence" can be associated with more than just those two factors. Chemical imbalances in the brain can, and do, short-circuit normal functions. (This is another subject area where it would require considerable amplification in order to do the issue justice. I believe that we have introduced far too many of those already...and extend my apologies to the readership for having done so.)

Yup!

About the gospels, true. About the rest, I don't know if that is the case or not.

:huh: (I almost followed that.) I think you are talking about "empathy." I can have empathy without any need of introducing the supernatural. Perhaps that is why Thomas Jefferson created his Bible devoid of it. Perhaps that is why I find the "Analectics" of Confucius so insightful.