Religion has stepped on science's turf?

[Dicky Underpants]

This whole thing started when Steve H claimed that Jesus being "fully human" meant not that he was human in the sense that we are all human fallible creatures but that he achieved some sort of Platonic ideal humanness that we fall short of (the "Platonic ideal" words are mine, not Steve's). He claims that that is what "fully human" means in the statement "Christ is fully God and fully human".

His interpretation is problematic in two ways. The first is that it means that we humans are not human, which is absurd given that "human" is a word that is defined to reference our species and also, apparently, offensive to some posters here. This is what we have been discussing up till now.

The interpretation is also problematic in that, in the context of the statement, it doesn't make sense. If you want to use that interpretation of "fully" for humans, you need to use the same interpretation for gods too, which implies there are other gods that are less than perfect.

As usual with all Steve's outpourings, it does well to bear in mind where he's coming from in his Christian beliefs. He's rather good at stating what traditional mainstream Christian doctrine is on these matters, without actually believing much of it himself - even though he writes (as here) as if he does believe such things.
I don't know how anyone could hold any concept of 'sin' at all without believing fairly strongly in traditional Christian doctrine, since the matter is inextricably associated with the latter. "Falling short of the mark" - what bloody mark is set by a 'non-realist' god? Or a god that's in the 'process' of growing itself? Likewise ideas of what constitutes being human or less than fully human.
Just to remind you of what Steve stated in the 'Omnipotence' thread, I think:

I don't think I said that I actually believed in the objective existence of an omnipotent (in any sense) God. However, I tend to drift between non-realism and process theology - sometimes one, sometimes the other.

[Dicky Underpants]

No that is in no way the Christian doctrine. Fallenness refers to sin alone.

You will find that certain Christians (admittedly, usually of the fundamentalist variety, who believe that the 'aboriginal calamity' brought about the whole debacle of descent from physical as well as moral perfection). Such are no doubt not 'your sort of Christian' (and, I should hardly need to point out, Steve isn't either). Once again, will the true Christians please stand up?

[ProfessorDavey]

You will find that certain Christians (admittedly, usually of the fundamentalist variety, who believe that the 'aboriginal calamity' brought about the whole debacle of descent from physical as well as moral perfection). Such are no doubt not 'your sort of Christian' (and, I should hardly need to point out, Steve isn't either). Once again, will the true Christians please stand up?

And although it may not be a particularly mainstream view now amongst Christians that disability was somehow a punishment for sin, for centuries this was mainstream doctrine.

[Enki]

Enki was being sanctimonious and self-righteous, and trying to make me feel guilty. I answered his point fully earlier.

Steve,

You do get yourself into a bit of a pickle, don't you?  First you suggest that Jesus was fully human and that all other human beings aren't because they are sinful. Hence what you are suggesting is that we are only partially human or at the very least not completely human.

Then when you are challenged on this, you come up with the question "How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?"  in this case, of course, it is being human that is being debated.

When you are questioned on this, your considered response is to say "Oh, fuck this for a game of soldiers - I've had enough of arguing with idiots." That got the desired effect, didn't it...not!

Then when your point of view is again challenged, your response is to come up with a Wikepedia article on the film 'Dumb and Dumber' which is a comedy film about 'two kindly but dimwitted men' which if it means anything, suggests either that you think that everyone who is arguing with you is dumb or that 'two kindly but dimwitted men' in the film are examples of your idea of people who are not fully human.

Then, when you are faced with my post as to what your statement that a person with faults cannot be 'fully whatever-it-is' actually means as regards physical/mental defects, you quite happily respond to it with the ringing endorsement of "Load of sentimental bollocks."

At last, in  post 120, you finally face up to your completely inappropriate choice of words, by admitting that 'being disabled doesn't make you less than fully human', a welcome addition to your previous question "How can someone or something with faults be fully whatever-it-is?" and emphasise that you actually meant 'sin' and no other faults, I assume.

However you go and spoil it by accusing others(of whom I am one) of being sanctimonious and trying to make you feel guilty. And, finally, you quite happily accuse me directly of being sanctimonious etc. none of which is true, but if it helps you to feel better about your position, then feel free to think that way.

One word of advice, Steve, which no doubt you will reject with the word 'bollocks' or some other opprobrious term, but is nevertheless pertinent, you might consider, when debating, that you think carefully about the terms and statements you make on a debating forum before posting them. We can all say things we don't quite mean(me, certainly included), and then we have to backtrack sometimes to explain ourselves.

Finally,
I can't find any reference in Orthodox theology about all other humans being 'less than full human' but I am quite happy to be corrected if you can point me in the right  direction.

[Rhiannon]

You will find that certain Christians (admittedly, usually of the fundamentalist variety, who believe that the 'aboriginal calamity' brought about the whole debacle of descent from physical as well as moral perfection). Such are no doubt not 'your sort of Christian' (and, I should hardly need to point out, Steve isn't either). Once again, will the true Christians please stand up?

I studied theology many moons ago with some very non fundie, quite liberal Christians who nevertheless were of the opinion that the fall of creation was the way to account for natural disasters and illness. If you do away with the Fall as the reason for it then what are you left with? Design flaws? God deliberately making suffering as a test of worthiness?

[trippymonkey]

I studied theology many moons ago with some very non fundie, quite liberal Christians who nevertheless were of the opinion that the fall of creation was the way to account for natural disasters and illness. If you do away with the Fall as the reason for it then what are you left with? Design flaws? God deliberately making suffering as a test of worthiness?

Didn't God regret making the earth & sent floods ie Noah etc ?!!?!?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And although it may not be a particularly mainstream view now amongst Christians that disability was somehow a punishment for sin, for centuries this was mainstream doctrine.

Which centuries? Make good your claim please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let us not beat about the bush.....sin can cause harm and spread disease.
Disability as a punishment for sin sounds more like past life Karma.

As for the revisionist ignorance that health and healing was the preserve of church orders for centuries I suppose that comes as no surprise.

[SteveH]

It was enki and others who first brought up disability (completely irrelevantly), not me. Imade the perfectly reasonable statement that (on the orthodox Christian view) all humans are less that they are supposed to be, because of sin.

[Roses]

It was enki and others who first brought up disability (completely irrelevantly), not me. Imade the perfectly reasonable statement that (on the orthodox Christian view) all humans are less that they are supposed to be, because of sin.

What are we supposed to be?

[jeremyp]

Imade the perfectly reasonable statement that (on the orthodox Christian view) all humans are less that they are supposed to be, because of sin.

If you had just said that, it would have been fine, but you didn't just say that. You said that we were less than fully human as though the word "human" means some platonic ideal rather than the flesh and blood creatures bumbling about on planet Earth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you had just said that, it would have been fine, but you didn't just say that. You said that we were less than fully human as though the word "human" means some platonic ideal rather than the flesh and blood creatures bumbling about on planet Earth.

So your saying that the faux, sanctomoious horror whipped up as a ruse to divert and reassert the antitheists position of inquisitor.......was a misunderstanding?

[Roses]

So your saying that the faux, sanctomoious horror whipped up as a ruse to divert and reassert the antitheists position of inquisitor.......was a misunderstanding?

I think he is pointing out that you made an erroneous statement.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which centuries? Make good your claim please.

Pretty well all of them - a few snap-shots of key points along the way:

Leviticus 21: 17-20
John 5:14 - 1stC
St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book 15, Chapter 23 - 5thC
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologić, Part 1, Question 51, Article 3 - 13thC
Canon 22 of the Lateran Council - 13thC
I maintain that Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind - Luther - 16thC
Ludovico Maria Sinastri, De Daemonialitate et Incubis et Succubis - talking about disabled children being born due to 'carnal intercourse between mankind and the Demon' - 17thC
Through to the current views of some evangelist/charismatic churches in the 20th and 21stC

Worth noting that there is a long history of people with disabilities being barred by canon law from becoming priests because they weren't suitably 'whole'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think he is pointing out that you made an erroneous statement.

That's funny because he was replying to someone else's post........what was that about being erroneous?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pretty well all of them - a few snap-shots of key points along the way:

Leviticus 21: 17-20
John 5:14 - 1stC
St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book 15, Chapter 23 - 5thC
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologić, Part 1, Question 51, Article 3 - 13thC
Canon 22 of the Lateran Council - 13thC
I maintain that Satan produces all the maladies which afflict mankind - Luther - 16thC
Ludovico Maria Sinastri, De Daemonialitate et Incubis et Succubis - talking about disabled children being born due to 'carnal intercourse between mankind and the Demon' - 17thC
Through to the current views of some evangelist/charismatic churches in the 20th and 21stC

Worth noting that there is a long history of people with disabilities being barred by canon law from becoming priests because they weren't suitably 'whole'.

Of the paucity of old stuff here so pretty much rules out your claim of every century.
The involvement with the devil and demons. Can that be included in the fall of man? Not sure it can since Christianity has always maintained that all are fallen not just satanists or the demonised

Demonology cannot count.

I shall give you a comment on Augustine et cie presently.

[Roses]

Of the paucity of old stuff here so pretty much rules out your claim of every century.
The involvement with the devil and demons. Can that be included in the fall of man? Not sure it can since Christianity has always maintained that all are fallen not just satanists or the demonised

Demonology cannot count.

I shall give you a comment on Augustine et cie presently.

Demonised, what are you on about?

[ProfessorDavey]

Of the paucity of old stuff here so pretty much rules out your claim of every century.

Are you denying that the likes of the bible, the writings of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther etc had influence beyond the century they were written in. And that statements embedded in Canon law simply vanish once a new century arises.
 

The involvement with the devil and demons. Can that be included in the fall of man? Not sure it can since Christianity has always maintained that all are fallen not just satanists or the demonised

Demonology cannot count.

Of course it can - much of this is about the notion that sinfulness is linked to the devil - indeed isn't the devil supposed to be the ultimate of the 'fallen'.

The point being for pretty well as long as christianity has been around (and still today amongst certain evangelical and charismatic churches) there has been the notion that disability and illness are a punishment from god for sin. Whether this is directly to the individual or more generally to human-kind as a whole is not the point. The point is that sinfulness and disability (and often illness) were seen as linked.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leviticus is rules about priesthood with no reference to causation as far as I can see.
John As I have said it is obvious that sin can cause deformities e.g. Thalidomide where Distillers ltd were found culpable.Seems just to be a measured piece of advice from the Lord.

Augustine seems to be writing about the association of angels taking wives and Giants.

Aquinus does relate disability to original sin rather than individual sin.

So we have Aquinas linking all suffering to the fall and Luther linking illness to the Authorship of Satan.

And a medieval attribution linking certain maladies to individual sin.

[SteveH]

What are we supposed to be?

Sinless, obviously! Do pay attention at the back!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whether this is directly to the individual or more generally to human-kind as a whole is not the point.

It very much is since I don't think anyone would deny that individual wrong doing can cause disability and illness.

[SteveH]

If you had just said that, it would have been fine, but you didn't just say that. You said that we were less than fully human as though the word "human" means some platonic ideal rather than the flesh and blood creatures bumbling about on planet Earth.

I was putting the orthodox, historical Christian view, not necessarily my own. It is that all humans are flawed and warped by sin, except Christ, who was the only flawless, perfect human since the fall. In other words, we are all less than fully human. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[ProfessorDavey]

John As I have said it is obvious that sin can cause deformities e.g. Thalidomide where Distillers ltd were found culpable.Seems just to be a measured piece of advice for the Lord.

What are you on about - what on earth is the relevance of John to Thalidomide. You are talking rubbish - John was very clearly linking the disability and illness of an individual to their sinfulness. 'See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.' Sin again and your disabilities will be revisited and in a worse manner.

[ProfessorDavey]

It very much is since I don't think anyone would deny that individual wrong doing can cause disability and illness.

I would, because we aren't talking here about direct cause/effect but general sin and general illness/disability. But even in the case of specific 'sin' - how on earth do you make that link. Can you give me a single example of an illness or disability where the known aetiology is a particular 'sin'. I don't.

[SteveH]

The point being for pretty well as long as christianity has been around (and still today amongst certain evangelical and charismatic churches) there has been the notion that disability and illness are a punishment from god for sin. Whether this is directly to the individual or more generally to human-kind as a whole is not the point. The point is that sinfulness and disability (and often illness) were seen as linked.

This is a deliberate distortion of the truth. The historical Christian position is that illness and disability are the result of the fall in a general sense but EMPHATICALLY NOT in a particular sense: the sick and disabled are not more sinful than the reswt; indeed, they have often, especially the mentally handicapped, been regarded as especially holy. Only Charismaniacs and other heretics blame individual sufferers for their suffering, and even the more intelligent (or less stupid) of them warn against doing that.
Criticise Christianity for what it does teach, and has taught in the past, by all means, but don't make stuff up and even, as here, actually invert the historical teaching of the church.