was:Monarchs now humanity

[Ron Gatrelle]

All: Read at your own risk due to "religious" content.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick Foley" <patfoley at csus.edu>
Subject: Re: was:Monarchs now humanity

snip
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.
****************
Not very large relative to good, evil and responsibility.

I am especially amused by the notion that evolutionary
biologists are at a loss to find "evil" in the world.
************

Then I didn't communicate properly.  Exactly to the contrary, those who
claim no god at all still find plenty of evil in the world an in
themselves.  It is evolution itself that is amoral and without any values
of good and evil at all - survival is even a goal, it is just a function.
Therein is the paradox and the contradiction of the strict evolutionist.
His intrinsic spirituality contradicts his perception and presentation of a
strictly natural and evolving Universe void of any Divine causality or even
influence.


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?
***********
There is a difference between spirit and soul.  The dog's _reaction_ is
based in soulish intimidation not shame.  From previous experience (if
nothing more than the tone of masters voice) it recognizes it is in
trouble.  When the master says, "Why, did you eat the cat!" it has no idea
what's up much less shame.   When the master says, "Is that your poop on
the carpet?"  It's not thinking, "Yah, I figured this would happen but just
couldn't resist."

Fury in infants or beasts has noting to do with "wrong" because (if they
had been tutored by the Bible) they would know that where there is no
knowledge of right and wrong (law) there IS NO right and wrong and thus no
accountability or punishment for it.  There can be discipline for the
purpose of correcting behavioral patterns, but that is not punishment.
Because animals are not corrupted by our degree of knowing, their societies
are much more "sane" than our own.  Once the lead male establishes his
place it (rarely) goes ahead and just kills its challenger anyway.
Humanity is a ship of fools and the more educated we get, from the
theologian (bible thumpers) to scientist (bomb makers) the dumber (and more
destructive) we seem to get.  Now we have theologians wanting nuclear
bombs - it doesn't get more insane than that.  Now there are now scientists
willing to help.

1) Only the human body is a part of nature. We are responsible for our the
natural world because we are the only spiritual creature here.
2) Evolutionarily, the above can not be true as all evolution produces is
amoral.  Nature is totally devoid of anything religious.
3) All humans have two natures.  One natural = evil.  One spiritual = good.
4) The bible teaches all humans are basically spiritual = good.
    [Utter depravity is not scriptural.  "Sin nature" is a whole different
thing.]
5) The spiritual can not "overcome" the imbedded evil without relational
help from God.
6) As God (as opposed to religion) is driven farther and farther from the
human composition, individually and societally, the consequences for the
natural world will only get worse and worse.  IF a person will not even do
what is best for their own body why in heaven's name would they do what is
best for earth, plant and beast.
7)  The tendency of science to divest itself of God only works against
conservation which is a cousin of redemption and restoration.

RG



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl