Re: Dispelling the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Myth

Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > > > And why should you call me a luddite? 
>
> > > > The shoe fits.
>
> > > > > I've given no indication I want
> > > > > to destroy technology, or oppose technology when properly used. 
>
> > > > Your little qualification is your shoe. It fits.
>
> > > So you support technology when improperly used?  Anything is
> > > O.K., as long as it involves use of modern machinery and
> > > industrial/technological stuff?  
>
> > I don't determine proper/improper use. I do distinguish between crimes 
> > like murder, but means are irrelevant.
>
> > > The attack on 9/11 was just
> > > dandy because it involved an airplane?
>
> > It was wrong for a whole lot of reasons, none of which are 
> > technological in nature.
>
>
> > > Of course one has to qualify the use of technology -- it is
> > > a tool, anything from a flaked handaxe to a modern space
> > > shuttle to a bomb.  A hammer is a form of technology, but a
> > > hammer becomes technology misused when someone uses it to
> > > murder someone else by whacking him on the head with it.
>
> > Irrelevant comparison. Technology is neutral.
>
>
> Yes, Usual -- that was exactly what I said, and meant.

That's not what you said. I also doubt it's what you meant.

>  To oppose
> the use of technology for inappropriate or negative ends -- such
> as close-confinement farming -- does not mean one opposes all use
> of technology, or is a "Luddite". 

In many instances it is Luddite.

> Technology is a hope for the
> future, a possible means of creating a cleaner, less destructive,
> world, and a means of coming to understand the world around us better.

That's better, now you sound like an ADM commercial.

> Technology, such as the study of genetics, has enabled us to see
> just how close we actually are to other species, for example -- the
> 90+ per cent of genes we share with chimpanzees, the 50+ per cent we
> share even with chickens. 

And of what benefit was that?

> Technology provides knowledge and power,
> and knowledge and power can always be used for either good or evil.

Lack of knowledge can also be misused for evil purposes. Technology in 
and of itself is neutral.

> Likewise, humans have not changed that much because of technology.

Why should we? We leap evolutionary hurdles thanks to technology.

> The concerns of an Australian aboriginal tribesman or an
> Ancestral Puebloan or a citizen of ancient Rome were not different
> in kind from the concerns of a modern person at a computer keyboard.
> We are still what we have always been -- human beings.  So insights
> from cultures with lower technological levels may still speak to us
> today, and, as I say, the works of Sophocles may be more valuable to
> us than Jerry Springer, 

That's hardly a fair comparison.

> or the worldview of a Navajo traditionalist
> more meaningful than the latest effusion from Fox News. 

You don't even watch it, so stop spewing your vitriol. If anyone should 
be pissed off at FNC it's I. I tuned in to Bill O'Reilly before MNF last 
night and his first three guests included Katrina van den Heuvel from 
The Nation, Tammy Bruce (she's cool for a lesbian), and some deranged 
nitwit from The Progressive. I don't see why liberals bitch so much 
about FNC when nearly every segment has some liberal on it.

> The position
> of women or the poor was not always worse in such cultures either.

It was usually.

> If we look back, for example, to the position of Mohammed's wife, it
> was better than the position of women under the Taliban, although the
> Taliban have much more modern technology (if not as good as American).

The Taliban are full-fledged Luddites; maybe you didn't know that.

> I would suggest here C.S. Lewis's _Abolition of Man_, if you haven't
> read it.

I'm surprised you recommend this one given it's objective moralism. 
Codes of ethics speak to universal truths, but the human experience is 
not monolithic even intra-culturally.

> > > > > I've
> > > > > just said that a high level of technology in itself does not make a
> > > > > culture's ideas more or less valuable.  Since you hold to a literalist
> > > > > interpretation of the bible, 
>
> > > > Where have I said what I believe?
>
> > > Where you claimed the bible could not be illuminated by the Holy
> > > Spirit or our interpretation of the text change over time.
>
> > I think you better go back and read what I actually wrote before you 
> > stick words like THOSE in my mouth. I think I only took exception to 
> > your statement that the Holy Spirit was behind your church's radical 
> > and novel interpretations of Scripture. Your positions (AR, 
> > homosexuality) are *not* an evolution of various interpretations, they 
> > are *novel* -- and in order to get to your *radical* positions, one 
> > must dismiss Scripture altogether (e.g., Hyland's redactions, 
> > dismissing all of the Pauline references to homosexuality, Jude 7, etc.).
>
> Ipse Dixit, Usual

That's not ipse dixit. Your profound mischaracterizations of my 
hermeneutic are ipse dixit. Go find the quotes which led you to believe 
that I'm (a) flat earth material, (b) fundamentalist, or (c) inflexible 
in interpretations. Just because I disagree (vehemently!) with some of 
the ones you've put forward doesn't mean I disagree with all other 
interpretations.

> -- I disagree, and so do many other people with
> professional theological training.

Your appeal is based on a combination of logical fallacies of appealing 
to authority and popularity.  Many more people with "professional 
theological training" will disagree with you than agree with you. FWIW, 
my training was also "professional" at an accredited seminary. I just 
wasn't in the M.Div. program itself, though I've completed about 80% of 
the coursework for it.

>  If the Holy Spirit was "behind"
> Jesus's radical reinterpretation of the tradition in the church
> of His day, and behind Paul's radical outreach to the Gentiles, I
> see no reason the Holy Spirit might not be behind the ECUSA's modern
> outreach to gays and Linzey's outreach to non-human animals.

Non sequitur. Christ's work was accompanied by signs and wonders, as 
were those of the Apostles. Where are yours? Where are Linzeys?

My objections to you analogy are predicated on continua -- and in the 
case of Jesus, the continuum starts in Genesis when God promises a 
redeemer and continues through all the covenants. Jesus wasn't a radical 
messiah, but the promised messiah. Prophets had written that his own 
people would not recognize him or accept him. The people were expecting 
their "king" to deliver them from temporal bondage. They were outraged 
when he only offered them deliverence from eternal bondage.

I don't, and cannot, accept that the Holy Spirit would lead the church 
to do a 180-degree turn on various issues -- which is what your position 
on homosexuality and Linzey's on AR would require. There is no continuum 
in church history for this stuff, and it's deeply offensive when people 
ascribe their whims as works or movements of the Spirit.

In making such claims, you and your church have *much* more in common 
with modern Pentecostals than with historic Christianity. The only 
difference is the Pentecostals use certain Scriptures to support their 
practice, while you dismiss the Scriptures (almost?) completely to come 
up with your novel teachings.

> You'll
> see Jesus saying, "You have heard it said...but I say to you" several
> times. 

Was he actually *changing* anything or was he merely drawing the 
holiness of God into much sharper focus? In one of those instances, he 
addressed God's standard when it comes to adultery: rather than 
dismissing it as an archaic notion like the ECUSA does, Jesus heightened 
his listeners' awareness of God's standard. The act of adultery is 
wrong, but so is just looking at someone with lust:
	You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit
	adultery.' But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with
	lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

He expounded the same way about murder:
        "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall
        not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.' But I
        say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to
        judgment...

In so doing, he wasn't changing anything at all -- he was demonstrating 
that the holiness of God is a much higher standard than we perceive. 
This is especially noticeable when he said, "I tell you, unless your 
righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven." Those two sects followed the law 
scrupulously -- the goats in that Matthew 25 parable. God's demand for 
holiness is met in the perfect life of Christ. As Paul wrote in Titus 3 
(note the subject-verb of each clause):
	But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,  he
	saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but
	because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth
	and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us
	generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been
	justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of
	eternal life.

One last thing. Jesus said in that same sermon (Sermon on the Mount):
        Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
        smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from
        the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever
        breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others
        to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But
        whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called
        greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Are you teaching the commandments or breaking them? Are you (as Paul 
wrote) preaching Christ crucified or Christ the animal liberator?

> Concern evolves, reaching outward to the "marginals".

Show me where Jesus condoned sin or trivialized sinful behavior in 
reaching out to sinners. We can have a discussion on John 8 if you want, 
but even then my point will stand. Jesus forgave the adultress and told 
her to sin "no more."

>  It was
> the "marginals" who were the main focus of Jesus's attention -- and
> the "marginals" today are often the gays and the animals.

Your interpretations are disingenuous. Salvation is for all. Jesus was 
not an animal liberator, nor was he a homosexual activist.