Doug Hayworth wrote:
[large snip]
<<
.... in some contexts, I suppose it is meaningful to talk about "proper"
function. But we were talking about HIV. The properties of HIV that make
it a successful pathogen in humans are its genuine current function, and
they should not be interpreted as "devolutions" (whatever that means) of
some "proper" function. It is a hugely successful "species" precisely
because of those changes in function which make it pathogenic.
>>
This is shifting the focus, but Preston has dropped the interesting
problem of evil into the feeding frenzy.
However, I was reflecting that the Bible does forbid a number of sexual
practices --- some of which actually do potentially have the possibility of
leading to sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, Lev 18:23 forbids sexual
relations with animals. I'm not familiar with research on the origins of
AIDS,
and please (those of you who do know) correct me if this is completely off
the mark, but somewhere, it seems I *heard* that the AIDS virus first crossed
to humans through other animials. (...Not just scrapie and mad cow disease)
The Bible does not so explicitly forbid prostitution, but it seems to look
down on it. There are examples such as Tamar and Judah (Gen 38),
and Lot and his daughters (Gen 19.30-38) which go contrary to this
position, but the consensus amongst the scholars (in the sources I
have) is that this behavior was not "approved", but simply "mentioned".
... a big difference.
On the matter of homosexuality (Lev 18:22), it seems the commentaries
I have (mysteriously) glide past this point. In any case, there is little
doubt that prostitution is (and could have been) another "convenient"
way of transmitting HIV; and AIDS could just as easily have appeared
first amongst the "Johns".
So, my thoughts here are, rather than seeing God as creating the HIV
virus for "good" (or perhaps for evil), God long ago did provide a Bible
which did at least suggest more healthy sexual practices that might
avoid contacting the AIDS virus and other horrendous pathagens of
doom.
In a similar way, for example, just because Joey plays with
matches, and the matches start a forest fire (or worse) does not
mean that Joey or the matches are evil does it? Either Joey has a
role of responsibility of his own that he didn't live up to (if he is over
a certain age), or he was not being properly supervised by people
who should have known better.
The same then could be said for people playing with the libido.
So there does seem to be some level of personal responsibility in
a fair amount of the things we discuss as "evil", in which we are
expected to play our part. There are some things that can't be
so easily explained from an individual responsibility stand point.
However, at least let us consider that if we live on a fault line,
we shouldn't complain about earthquakes --- particularly in light
of modern geology.
Finally, I quote an article from George Murphy on this latter point.
"It is conceivable that God could intervene arbitrarily in the course of
nature,
but it seems that God is so gracious that such interventions occur seldom,
if at all. This _is_ grace, for it would be impossible for us to understand
our world,
or to have any sort of control over our lives, if God ran the world through
continual
miracles. The regularity of natural processes is of course, what makes
science
possible. Even more fundamentally, it makes responsible human life possible.
This also means that cancer and earthquakes will take their course, and
will not be stopped miraculously. that is the price paid for a lawful
universe.
God, in other words, has apparently chosen a course of self-limitation, and
acts (with the possible exception of a set of events of measure zero) only
through the rational pattern of relationships which God has created."
[Theology of the Cross and God's Work in the World, Zygon in press I
assume....]
by Grace we do proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 13 2000 - 10:54:27 EDT