Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Sixth Form Theology.
For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.
Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?
And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.
And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.
I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.
For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.
Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?
And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.
And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.
I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Sign the Petition.
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)