Saddened by a supposed external lack of 'beauty'.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

You have some points in your favor here.  But you are also ignoring certain points against you.

Your points are well-taken, but you misunderstand me. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my viewpoint. I'm just explaining my viewpoint so that others can see where I'm coming from. As I already wrote, I share many of these biases myself, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing them and trying to point them out.

How we look today is to some pretty large extent a reflection of what our ancestors found beautiful.

[Guest Mores]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Your points are well-taken, but you misunderstand me. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my viewpoint.

Fair enough.

18 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm just explaining my viewpoint so that others can see where I'm coming from. As I already wrote, I share many of these biases myself, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing them and trying to point them out.

I understand your position.  But to say that I "understand where you're coming from" would require a qualified response.

18 hours ago, Vort said:

How we look today is to some pretty large extent a reflection of what our ancestors found beautiful.

I can't disagree with this statement.  But for some reason I get the impression this means something different to you than it does to me.

But maybe you're right.  Maybe I spend too much time thinking about the aesthetic qualities of body hair.  Maybe I think about sex too much.  Maybe I think about hormonal differences in sexes and species and their social impacts on the penguin population in Southern Argentina...  naaahhhh.

[NeuroTypical]

By the way, life on a hobby ranch puts so much into perspective. If ever we start worrying about the blurring cultural lines of our gender roles and such things, we only need a quick trip to a barnyard to put things back into perspective.  Nowhere are gender roles more strictly adhered to, even violently enforced, than in the natural world.  We've got turkeys.  The "pecking order" is built into their DNA.  The manliest, biggest dude with the studliest feathers is in charge.  Everyone else vies for 2nd place, or maybe 2nd to last place.  The best turkey flock is 5-6 hens, 1 large-and-in-charge full-of-himself dude, and a couple of weenie-boys who are not strong enough to make trouble.  Too many toms, and there is fighting (possibly to death), the hens are 'overused' (possibly to death), etc. 

It's odd to think about, but animals, who cannot sin, and function perfectly in the sphere of their existence, will kill other dudes over women, and will literally breed some poor female to death.

Turkey toms have two jobs - strut to impress the ladies, and strut to intimidate the fellows.  Anything else just confuses them.   Turkey hens have two main jobs: complain about their idiot men they must tolerate, and protect their children.  The hens have a little more flexibility in their gender roles, sometimes they'll display male characteristics.  Like when the toms aren't manly enough to protect the flock, or when the hen has had enough of something and wants to intimidate whatever she's ticked off at.

This post is only a tangent to the overall thread.  But yes, the natural world will judge you based on your body hair/feathers/etc.

[Guest Mores]

55 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

By the way, life on a hobby ranch puts so much into perspective. If ever we start worrying about the blurring cultural lines of our gender roles and such things, we only need a quick trip to a barnyard to put things back into perspective.  Nowhere are gender roles more strictly adhered to, even violently enforced, than in the natural world.  We've got turkeys.  The "pecking order" is built into their DNA.  The manliest, biggest dude with the studliest feathers is in charge.  Everyone else vies for 2nd place, or maybe 2nd to last place.  The best turkey flock is 5-6 hens, 1 large-and-in-charge full-of-himself dude, and a couple of weenie-boys who are not strong enough to make trouble.  Too many toms, and there is fighting (possibly to death), the hens are 'overused' (possibly to death), etc. 

It's odd to think about, but animals, who cannot sin, and function perfectly in the sphere of their existence, will kill other dudes over women, and will literally breed some poor female to death.

Turkey toms have two jobs - strut to impress the ladies, and strut to intimidate the fellows.  Anything else just confuses them.   Turkey hens have two main jobs: complain about their idiot men they must tolerate, and protect their children.  The hens have a little more flexibility in their gender roles, sometimes they'll display male characteristics.  Like when the toms aren't manly enough to protect the flock, or when the hen has had enough of something and wants to intimidate whatever she's ticked off at.

This post is only a tangent to the overall thread.  But yes, the natural world will judge you based on your body hair/feathers/etc.

This lobster understands.  

[Vort]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

By the way, life on a hobby ranch puts so much into perspective. If ever we start worrying about the blurring cultural lines of our gender roles and such things, we only need a quick trip to a barnyard to put things back into perspective.  Nowhere are gender roles more strictly adhered to, even violently enforced, than in the natural world.  We've got turkeys.  The "pecking order" is built into their DNA.  The manliest, biggest dude with the studliest feathers is in charge.  Everyone else vies for 2nd place, or maybe 2nd to last place.  The best turkey flock is 5-6 hens, 1 large-and-in-charge full-of-himself dude, and a couple of weenie-boys who are not strong enough to make trouble.  Too many toms, and there is fighting (possibly to death), the hens are 'overused' (possibly to death), etc. 

It's odd to think about, but animals, who cannot sin, and function perfectly in the sphere of their existence, will kill other dudes over women, and will literally breed some poor female to death.

Turkey toms have two jobs - strut to impress the ladies, and strut to intimidate the fellows.  Anything else just confuses them.   Turkey hens have two main jobs: complain about their idiot men they must tolerate, and protect their children.  The hens have a little more flexibility in their gender roles, sometimes they'll display male characteristics.  Like when the toms aren't manly enough to protect the flock, or when the hen has had enough of something and wants to intimidate whatever she's ticked off at.

This post is only a tangent to the overall thread.  But yes, the natural world will judge you based on your body hair/feathers/etc.

Indeed, this is a profound insight into the mind of God. The natural world is set up as a collection of things to be acted upon, and they fill their roles. The children of God are made out of the same stuff as those things. From the earthy origins of our bodies, we inherit the selfsame tendencies to respond and react, to be things that are acted upon.

But we have more than that. We have a spirit that comes from God, that is a created child of God. Our spirits can work their own works, above that of the earthy flesh. We can choose not to act like turkeys. It's a challenge, to be sure. The flesh is weak and its influence is very strong. Much of what we see about us in human society is a reflection of this. But the very existence of the human race and the fact that we do see great and noble things evidences our divine gift of moral agency.

On a tangentially related note, this is why I have no philosophical problem with organic evolution. We ARE animals, unless we exercise our moral agency to be something greater. I see no reason to object to the idea that our physical bodies follow (and followed) exactly the same path as all other physical things we see. Those paths are set by God, and all things physical follow them. Are we of the flesh or of the spirit? Or to put it another popular way: Are we physical beings experiencing spirituality, or are we spiritual beings experiencing physicality? Many start out seemingly as the former, but we should strive to become the latter.