was:Monarchs now humanity
patfoley at csus.edu
Sat Apr 9 17:57:10 EDT 2005
I acknowledge your straightforward Christian analysis, very similar to
what the Jesuits taught me (despite their reputation as theologically
peculiar among many evangelicals).
But, perhaps because you are not a secular humanist, a primitive
animist, a Buddhist or a Taoist, you overstate the case for the
separation of the natural and spiritual human. I certainly don't want to
argue with you about your religion. I simply want people to know that
there are very different perspectives in the very large human religious
community. I am especially amused by the notion that evolutionary
biologists are at a loss to find "evil" in the world. Any social
creature (and quite a few of them are untutored in the Bible) has a very
clear sense of what "wrong" is. Haven't you every seen asn ashamed dog,
or a furious infant?
Ron Gatrelle wrote:
>For the sake of the original and still leps-l continuing thread, and also
>to be polite to those who don't want to read stuff like the following, I
>have changed the name due to the direct it is taking. Also do not cc or
>forward this to another group as that sort of thing is rude as it dumps
>others into the middle of something they have no point of reference to.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <jppelham at cs.com>
>Subject: RE: [leps-talk] Re: Re:Parasites and Monarchs
>>The words "inhuman" and “inhumane” direct us to the notion that we
>usually do not consider other creatures capable of inhumane behavior. It
>is only the human animal that is inhumane. It is “natural” for us to rape,
>pillage and plunder not only the natural world, but each other.
>I am one of those (moderately) against zoos because animals in such
>conditions develop (or loose) _their natural_ patterns of behavior. Thus,
>they do things that are "un-natural", even to each other. Our use of the
>term "unnatural" relative to other animals is the equivalent to our use of
>inhuman for ourselves. All I have to do is coin the word inseal and have
>it catch on for it to be in Webster's in 20 years. But then we would have
>to coin such a word for every living thing on earth. So instead we at
>times even use the term "inhumane" in application to vicious disfunctional
>animal behaviour. So your use of words like that has little argumentative
>Secondly, rape, pillage and plunder are precisely _natural_. Totally 100%.
>You are talking to a preacher, and I know you had enough Sunday School to
>know what the bible says about the Carnal and Natural Man as opposed to the
>Spiritual Man. All of the "wrong" things we do as a species are dirrectly
>out of the fact that we are a dichodomy - a nautral man and a spriitual
>man. If the spiritual man (that each of us is) allows the nautral man
>(that each of us is) to dominate our existance we will behave "wrongly".
>To correct this, it takes the element of submitting ourselves to God's
>Spirit - can't do it by ourselves (humanism). Rape is something almost all
>male animals do - we are the only ones to have made it a "crime".
>Homosexuality used to be "against the law" too but is now widely embrased
>as simply genetic. Same for alcholism. Rapests have looonnnng stated
>that it is not their "fault" it is in their genes. Neil has stated the
>bent to religiosity is in our genes - I can't help it. The greatist proof
>of Jehovah God and Creation is all of us. The one very unique thing He
>made. Test the theory. Is what He claimed to have created existant? In
>abundance. Does it behave exactly as He stated - uniquely different from
>all other animals? Patently obvious - except to the unwise: Romans
>The flaw in this whole thread is that each person is speaking of humanity
>out of their own religious view of mankind - because from the pure
>Evolutional construct, it is impossible for Homo sapiens to be "evil" and
>without that there can be no "crimes" against nature. With only nature as
>our progenitor, everything we do is completely a natural part of the human
>species. Many are like an HIV virus that wakes up one day and decides that
>its kind is (correctly so) a disgusting and harmful thing, but, then denies
>that this is exactly what makes it what it is. It is its natural state of
>being. Odd, how it is the bible (not science) that has us IDed
>correctly - we are the most disgusting and dangerous entity not only on
>earth but in the Universe in our natural man. Tadah - Adamic Sin Nature.
>>It is long past time that we humans, collectively, take responsibility
>for our actions, both now and in the future. Generations hence will ask
>why we were so cavalier about the gifts of this world; why were we so
>wanton in our disregard for “Creation”. Some ask these questions of our
>past right now.
>Correct, but this is achieved by dealing with Man as a spiritual being via
>"religion". It can not be done by secular humanism (= man can resolve his
>own problems by himself). The "why not?" is very simple, one can't solve a
>spiritual problem by natural means or visa versa.
>Is Homo sapiens a part of nature? Yes and no from the religious
>perspective, and because of the no he is responsible (for it) and
>accountable (to God). Only yes from the strictly evolutional perspective,
>and in which he is neither responsible or accountable. I have never heard
>of any single creature or group express any complains against us nor bring
>any charges - they are unaware and don't care. So we sure aren't
>accountable to them. Our sense of responsibility is thus not due to any
>complaint from things natural, it is that of god in every man - conscience.
>Something only Spirit beings have.
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Leps-l