Hermaphrodites?

[Ooberman]

How do Christians explain Hermaphrodites? In what world would God care about sexuality, then create people with both sex organs?

Isn't naturalism a better answer?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 43 by Ooberman]

Did God design the natural world, under your view?

The universe was created by God as per Genesis.

Did God design the natural world to be affected by sin? Didn't God design the genetic make-up of humans to be susceptible to creating intersex people?

No. The world was designed to have no errors. No earthquakes, no famine, no cancer, no killing, no carnivores, no down syndrome kids, no siamese twins, no mental defects, no genetic defects - no death.

After all, God didn't design our dna to turn us into 20' tall giraffes because of sin. It seems, if there is a Designer God, that he intentionally meant for their to be intersex people.

Then he intentionally meant for death to occur and then he is evil.

It's not a question worth asking until you see the difference in a designed universe as opposed to natural universe. In a natural universe, there is no over-riding intention.

I understand the view of materialism very well.

I'll ask you again, since you didn't answer, do you see the difference? If there is no God, then there is no optimal design, no intention, and therefore variations are only advantageous for something or not.

It's like asking if a rock is supposed to be the way it is. It just is.

Under a Designer God Universe, all things are intended to be exactly as they are, according to The Plan.

If there is no God there is no design. I get it. However I find naturalism absurd. It is like watching a person walk into a wall over and over and over and not thinking something is wrong. If God intended from the beginning for the world to be this way then God is evil.

However I am lead to believe from the Bible that God did not intend the world to be this way. The curse is in fact a mercy rather than the just response of death for our sins. We are given time to experience the fruit of good and evil and decide for ourselves which path we wish to take. Which is why you aren't talking about Bible God when you try to generalise about religion. However I should have noted that your questions are daggers for other religion's views of God.

Hopefully you will answer my questions in the spirit I have shown in trying to answer you questions directly. I have tried to supply what I understand from our discussion would be the naturalist's answer but please correct what you need to and answer (if you wish) what I don't yet understand is the naturalist's answer.

* How should a naturalist regard intersex people?

It is natural.

* Are there mistakes in genetics?

No. Even though the science shows how our genetic machines do their best to replicate 100% accurately according to their programming the failure to do so is still natural.

* Would you use a calculator if it had mistakes in the answer it gave?

Answer: ?

* What is naturalism's better answer?

It's all natural.

* If i presume the naturalist will say intersex people are natural then may i ask what is unnatural?

Nothing is unnatural if it is from the material world.

* If am intersex-phobic (Please note that I prefer the term 'discernment impaired') then isn't that my biology and therefore natural?

Yes that is natural and I apologise for insinuating earlier that there is something wrong with being intersex-phobic.

* Is a down syndrome person or poor eyesight natural?

Yes.

* Suppose we had the science to repair a down syndrome person or poor eyesight should we use it?

Answer: ?

* Is error acceptable instead of mistake, if not, then what word should we use when we are choosing to use medicine to change something that is natural?

Answer: ?

* For which natural things is it acceptable to act upon? Discuss intersex people,down syndrome people, poor eyesight and cancer?

Answer: ?

[Ooberman]

No. The world was designed to have no errors. No earthquakes, no famine, no cancer, no killing, no carnivores, no down syndrome kids, no siamese twins, no mental defects, no genetic defects - no death.

So, how is it possible, if all things are made by God, that intersex could even happen? I thought nature couldn't design?

Apparently Nature designed it's own unique mutations - against the design by God?

After all, God didn't design our dna to turn us into 20' tall giraffes because of sin. It seems, if there is a Designer God, that he intentionally meant for their to be intersex people.

Then he intentionally meant for death to occur and then he is evil.

That doesn't answer the question. Death is fine, but why not at 12 million years old, in your sleep with a full healthy life.

I am trying to understand why, specifically, why God would have designed DNA to specifically create a person who is neither Man or Woman, under his strict claim that he only made Man and Woman.

So, in reality, Genesis should read "he created Man and Woman, who in turn have the possibility of creating genetic mutations that either will be fatal, or disfiguring, or painful, or sexually confusing."

I'll ask you again, since you didn't answer, do you see the difference? If there is no God, then there is no optimal design, no intention, and therefore variations are only advantageous for something or not.

It's like asking if a rock is supposed to be the way it is. It just is.

Under a Designer God Universe, all things are intended to be exactly as they are, according to The Plan.

If there is no God there is no design. I get it.

No, if there IS a God, there IS design: THIS DESIGN. The Design that would cause intersex people, cause infants to die of genetic mutations.
The Design that makes people have murderous rages because of tumors.
The Design that allows a woman to go so insane that she drowned her 3 children.
The Design that, only by this design, make it possible for there to be far more suffering in the world if there were no genetic mutations.

Your God purposely Designed flaws into our basic physical structure - flaws that affect our Mind. Flaws that cause some people to have both sex organs in a world in which he only claimed there were two genders.

However I find naturalism absurd. It is like watching a person walk into a wall over and over and over and not thinking something is wrong. If God intended from the beginning for the world to be this way then God is evil.

Your words, not mine.

However I am lead to believe from the Bible that God did not intend the world to be this way.

So, he didn't design our DNA to accept mutations that cause disfigurment?

Who designed our DNA?

The curse is in fact a mercy rather than the just response of death for our sins.

This sounds like an abused wife. First, "the curse" - you are saying God cursed us? With a spell? So he intended a baby to develop an enlarged heart and die a painful death while the mother looks on? And this is merciful?

Not in my lexicon, buddy. That is sick. It's disgusting.

We are given time to experience the fruit of good and evil and decide for ourselves which path we wish to take.

WE, who? The babies dying around the world? Really? They are given that option?

Which is why you aren't talking about Bible God when you try to generalise about religion. However I should have noted that your questions are daggers for other religion's views of God.

There God sounds better than yours! Yikes!

* How should a naturalist regard intersex people?

It is natural.

* Are there mistakes in genetics?

No. Even though the science shows how our genetic machines do their best to replicate 100% accurately according to their programming the failure to do so is still natural.

* Would you use a calculator if it had mistakes in the answer it gave?

Answer: No, unless it was the only calculator I had.

* What is naturalism's better answer?

It's all natural.

No, it fits the data.

* If i presume the naturalist will say intersex people are natural then may i ask what is unnatural?

Nothing is unnatural if it is from the material world.

Right.

* If am intersex-phobic (Please note that I prefer the term 'discernment impaired') then isn't that my biology and therefore natural?

Yes that is natural and I apologise for insinuating earlier that there is something wrong with being intersex-phobic.

Right, and I would likewise have no control over my behavior, so the apology would be moot. Hence, there is none forthcoming.
Works both ways, right?

* Is a down syndrome person or poor eyesight natural?

Yes.

* Suppose we had the science to repair a down syndrome person or poor eyesight should we use it?

Answer: ?

Sure. There is no reason not to. After all, our ability to do so would be a natural outgrowth of our ability.

If you are suggesting it is moral to help people see, or not have DS, then what has God been doing all these years?

Works both ways. It's either moral or not, IF YOU HAVE THE MEANS.

* Is error acceptable instead of mistake, if not, then what word should we use when we are choosing to use medicine to change something that is natural?

Answer: ?

Doing what we can to help people live a little better in their one, finite Life.

* For which natural things is it acceptable to act upon? Discuss intersex people,down syndrome people, poor eyesight and cancer?

Answer: ?

Any that we think might help that person, based on the best medical/surgical ability we have.

That would seem to be the moral thing to do: Do the best you can with what you have. (I will point out, God is allegedly omnipotent - which means he could fix all of this, but not only does he choose not to, but he was responsible for intersex people, DS, congential blindness, etc.)


Under naturalism, we can create moral values that help people with certain conditions we deem undesirable. "Undesirable" is a loaded term, but it's the best we can say. Under naturalism, there is no moral Judge. We have to determine moral values as best we can.

If we choose to NOT help, then that's just the way it is. There isn't some Superman swooping in to save us from ourselves.

Nature doesn't care, but that doesn't mean we, individuals, can't.

I think this explanation perfectly explains the world, and why we are in the situation we are in - Good and Bad.




I'd like to know, if there is a God - and he is moral - why doesn't he help do what he can? How about simply end genetic diseases?


Why can't he tweak his design? Is it too difficult? I wouldn't think so. Seems like it wouldn't take half a second for God.


So, under theism, if God - the Moral Paradigm - isn't helping people, why should we? Especially genetic diseases - which he designed into us, and only in the last few decades have we even adequately understood in order to talk about them intelligently?

500 years ago, we wouldn't be talking about genetics. People dying wouldn't have been explained other than "demon's got 'im". Or "God got 'im" - and the difference would be indistinguishable.

[bluethread]

I didn't use the term "cured", you did. Why do we have the march of dimes? If one's genetic make-up causes them to be born with one lung, three arms or two penises, why must they be "cured"?

Sure, why not? But those aren't things that God thinks are sinful.

I think you are losing focus and trying to find red herrings.

So, you agree God has made us to have those problems?

No, it is you who is putting up the red herrings. I asked you where in the Scriptures one finds that hermaphrodites are sinful simply because they exist? If you believe that those other things should be "cured", then why not variations in sexual organs? Your the one who is requiring that believers make moral judgments based on the involuntary absence or excess of sexual organs. So, where is that written?

4. Again, it ignores the fact that God made the conditions for people to be born with attributes that God considers sinful, then judges them for their actions based on the very thing God made them to be in the first place. Why would God make it possible for people to be blind? Just so 1 or 2 of them can be "cured" by a con man?

Where does it say, in the Scriptures, that any of these conditions is sinful? On what basis do you extrapolate that exactly what occurred with the man born blind is exactly what should be done for all anatomical differences. Could it be that we have anatomical differences so that Adonai's power can be shown in many ways.

An intersex person has no opportunity to marry without violating the alleged Christian commandment that it's between a man and a woman.

Again, I think you haven't grasped the problem. Perhaps I'm not being clear. Perhaps you don't want to see the problem.

So, a glatt hermaphrodite can't eat cheeseburgers either. What is your point?

All these Christians explanation are obviously ad hoc rationalizations.

So, why did you bring them up?

To show they are ad hoc.

But, why? They have nothing to do with the question I asked.

I'd like the Christian to explain the connection from:

Free Will means sin can happen... therefore, sin causes genetic changes in plants and animals.

I don't think a Christian can make a credible case for this at all.

Would any Believer like to give it a shot?

How does Free Will change dna, particularly in things that don't have Free Will?


Let's face it, any answer given is going to be religious blather. I'd love to be proven wrong.

How about this one? I didn't say it did. Is that religious blather?

Now, can we address the point I actually made? Is it immoral to "cure" "birth defects", or should we consider all genetic differences to be sacrosanct?

Which way are you arguing? If it is a theistic universe or an atheistic universe?

Don't you see how it matters?

Either way, or both, just answer a question I actually asked, instead of the ones you want me to ask, just so you can call me an idiot for asking them.

[Danmark]

The Bible takes a dim view of 'God's mistakes' and blames the victim:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD."
Deut. 23:1

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

_ Leviticus 21

[bluethread]

The Bible takes a dim view of 'God's mistakes' and blames the victim:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the Deut. 23:1assembly of the LORD."

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

_ Leviticus 21

What do you mean by "dim view"? That is not a moral sin, it is a disqualifier. Unattractive women are not permitted to be Miss America. Does that mean that they are bad women?

[Danmark]

The Bible takes a dim view of 'God's mistakes' and blames the victim:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the Deut. 23:1assembly of the LORD."

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

_ Leviticus 21

What do you mean by "dim view"? That is not a moral sin, it is a disqualifier. Unattractive women are not permitted to be Miss America. Does that mean that they are bad women?

Are you seriously comparing God to the people who run beauty pageants?
Actually, now that I think of it, it is an apt comparison.
Both God and beauty pageants prize superficial physical beauty over spiritual qualities, hence God's long list of physical deformities and injuries that disqualify someone for a spiritual task.

One would think that if God made us in his image, and that means our spiritual nature or our 'souls' are the most important part of us, the rest being a mere temple to house the immortal 'soul,' that God would see beyond our Earthly shell to our spiritual essence.

Why, it's almost enough to make a guy think the Bible was written by men, not God.

[Ooberman]

Either way, or both, just answer a question I actually asked, instead of the ones you want me to ask, just so you can call me an idiot for asking them.

Now you are editing out important points. I will take it you no longer want to debate this subject.

And, it's not "either way". It matters. It really matters if you are going to argue from a theistic p.o.v. or and atheistic. Pick one.

We haven't gotten into the meat of the problem, because I am still trying to get you to see that God specifically made our genetics to do what we see them doing now. This is an important point. Under a theistic universe, God designed into the system the ability for genetic mutation.

Unless you are going to claim your God is a bumbler and was blind-sided by the mutations.


Then, I presume you claim homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay. After all, why would God make someone prefer certain sins to others? Would that be Just? How so?

Which ties into this debate. Do intersex people CHOOSE to be intersex? Do they CHOOSE to have sexual desires, but are destined to suppress them?


When God designed DNA to become intersex, did he plan for them to have a desire to sleep with a man or woman, but be condemned for the thought?

Or, if he gives a pass to intersex people, why not make everyone intersex, if they get a pass?

Again, any answer is going to be ad hoc, but clearly, there is a host of issues the Theist can't answer - but are important: they speak to the character of your God.




And, to end. Your comment on mutations "Could it be that we have anatomical differences so that Adonai's power can be shown in many ways."

Asking a question isn't debating. It's asking a question. And, NO! How in the world does a baby dying of a genetic disease, in pain, show God's power? Wouldn't it show the power of Sin?


This idea that it shows the power of God is remarkably obtuse. It has no meaning, nor logical structure.

[bluethread]

The Bible takes a dim view of 'God's mistakes' and blames the victim:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the Deut. 23:1assembly of the LORD."

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

_ Leviticus 21

What do you mean by "dim view"? That is not a moral sin, it is a disqualifier. Unattractive women are not permitted to be Miss America. Does that mean that they are bad women?

Are you seriously comparing God to the people who run beauty pageants?
Actually, now that I think of it, it is an apt comparison.
Both God and beauty pageants prize superficial physical beauty over spiritual qualities, hence God's long list of physical deformities and injuries that disqualify someone for a spiritual task.

One would think that if God made us in his image, and that means our spiritual nature or our 'souls' are the most important part of us, the rest being a mere temple to house the immortal 'soul,' that God would see beyond our Earthly shell to our spiritual essence.

Why, it's almost enough to make a guy think the Bible was written by men, not God.

I thought I'd answered this, but it must not have gone through. I hope you are not seriously requiring me to make an absolutely perfect analogy. The significant part of the analogy is that in a beauty pageant the contestants symbolically represent what it means to be a woman. Now, one may disagree with the symbolism, but that doesn't change the purpose. The Temple and it's practices symbolically represent what it means to be one of Adonai's people. The person who does not physically meet the requirements of that symbolism has not committed a moral sin any more than the woman who loses a beauty pageant has committed a moral sin against womanhood. What is being symbolized is more important. In fact, the Prophets repeatedly fault the Priests for focusing on the symbolism and ignoring the principles that symbolism represents. Also, there are passages that speak of spirituality, but, greek Platonism, spirituality, symbolism and daily life are intertwined.

[Ooberman]

Now, one may disagree with the symbolism, but that doesn't change the purpose. The Temple and it's practices symbolically represent what it means to be one of Adonai's people. The person who does not physically meet the requirements of that symbolism has not committed a moral sin any more than the woman who loses a beauty pageant has committed a moral sin against womanhood. What is being symbolized is more important. In fact, the Prophets repeatedly fault the Priests for focusing on the symbolism and ignoring the principles that symbolism represents. Also, there are passages that speak of spirituality, but, greek Platonism, spirituality, symbolism and daily life are intertwined.

This is when the theist suddenly shifts to "it's metaphor!"

Blue, the passage was a direct quote (allegedly) from God. If this is metaphorical, then "shouldn't sleep with a man as a woman" can be read as "when you have gay sex, don't do it like you'd do it with a woman. Enjoy the penis in your butt!".

Personally, blue, I think you are desperately reaching. I think you have no idea of divinity. If you are right, I would wish you weren't. But I don't think you are, and you have no argument to suggest otherwise.