Only if the equipment works properly.
2 Likes
So even if a gender carries the fetus, gives birth, and gives the newborns milk, if that gender contributes the smaller gamete then it is the male?
Seems to me, this has definition removed all but the most trivial part of being female. I think this is the problem with pushing to much biology into it, because biologically this really isn’t something absolute, but more of a complex spectrum of contributions to the reproductive process.
I think it is far more important to focus on what we as human beings want. And then we have to accept the reality that we all do not want the same things, and it is the freedom to pursue happiness as we choose which matters most. And that goes just as much for those who want the traditional way of doing things as those who want something else. So people taking it on themselves to dictate a way of life for all, saying they speak for God or something else, are not really helping anything.
This really made me laugh since it is so counter to reality, which is that all of us are drawn forth from a woman and no writing in any book is going to change that fact! LOL
1 Like
Yes, among biologists, biological sex has only to do with the gametes and there are only two biological sexes. “roles in parental care” is another thing altogether. For example, male seahorses incubate the eggs which the female deposits in his pouch and he “gives birth” to tiny seahorses weeks later after “being pregnant” with them in his own body. But the male seahorses are still called males because they contribute sperm, not eggs, to the next generation.
In another example, both male and female birds in the dove family and in some other birds develop “crop milk” secretion from their reproductive tracts that they regurgitate to feed their nestlings. Yet the male is still called a male because he produced the sperm, and the female the egg.
7 Likes
It’s an argument from “the order of Creation”, with “order” not in the sense of who/what came first and what/who came after but indicating lesser and greater. Various theologians down the centuries have used it even though some didn’t consider the Garden stories to be literal history; they argued that the principles remain the same because the story comes from God.
And in terms of order of Creation, even the biological sequence points to the same idea on the argument that the action of the man is foundational since without the man’s “seed” the woman would never have a child. In scholasticism this was termed the “active principle”, i.e. the man activated the process.
It’s a bit of a strange view to us but was very solid reasoning under several worldviews.
Interesting, it is always beneficial to see how a certain passage has been interpreted through the ages.
Dr. Benjamin Kilchör argues:
In Genesis 2, Adam and Eve are appointed as priests in the Garden of Eden like Aaron and his sons in Leviticus 9. The death of Adab and Nabihu in Leviticus 10 mirrors the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. …
On the eighth day after the seven-day consecration of the priests (Lev 8,33) the first sacrifice takes place, the priests start their daily service, and the tabernacle becomes approachable for them.
The Eighth Day: The Appointment of Adam as Priest in Eden and the Priestly Profile of Genesis 2-3
Full interview with Dr. Kilchör: Genesis 2 is the 8th day of Creation ft. Dr. Benjamin Kilchör
Also, God said the Israelites would be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6).
Then the golden calf incident happened. Only the Levites remained loyal, and they killed 3000 idolaters. Because of that, Yahweh set them apart to be priests (32:25-29).
Speed forward 1300ish years. At Pentecost, not only is Babel reversed (2:5-11). But also what happened at Sinai: 3000 people were baptised (2:41)! Men and women from all tribes now became a kingdom of priests, just as Yahweh had always intended.
2 Likes
I would argue it is not that clear:
Influenced by Greek philosophy and Aristotelian thought, the majority of early interpreters concluded that Eve was an inferior and secondary creation who bore primary responsibility for plunging the world into sin and strife. …
While the text offers detailed information about the mechanics of Eve’s creation, it is silent about what these details signify, particularly as they pertain to the nature and role of Eve. Does Eve’s secondary creation, for instance, denote inferiority? Or, does being created last make her the crowning glory of God’s creation? Does being formed from man’s rib mean the woman is derivative and thus subordinate to him? Or does it indicate a relationship of intimacy and mutuality between the man and the woman? …
the characterization of both Eve and God as an ʿēzer suggests that this word does not denote status at all but rather describes a behavior, the activity of sustaining, upholding, and blessing the life of another. Far from confirming a hierarchical interpretation, then, the word ʿēzer maintains the ambiguity. …
The lack of the naming formula and the use of the passive voice in the second instance suggest that instead of acting upon the woman with authority and dominion, Adam is receiving and rejoicing in this creature God now brings to him to alleviate his aloneness. Like the word ʿēzer, then, Genesis 2:23 does little to clarify the biblical witness regarding the status and ordering of man and woman.
Paul tackles this issue in his first letter to the Corinthians (NIV).
Paul quoting the Corinthians’ letter (7:1a)
11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Paul’s rebuttal
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
I realise this interpretation of the passage is contested. For a more comprehensive treatment, see Paul Defends The Status Of Women In 1 Corinthians 11.
While we are indulging in these subjective interpretations of special revelation, I thought I would add some likewise subjective interpretations of general revelations from genetics (XY chromosomes) and biology. LOL
So every man is half woman and it is the greater half of him. The X chromosome (150 million nucleotides and 900 genes) is definitely (2.5 times) bigger than the Y chromosome (60 million nucleotides or 55 genes). So we can say in this sense, woman can at least in principle be taken out of man (by doubling his one X chromosome). And while man has some added genetic material women do not have (on the Y chromosome), in many ways it represents a reduction to less capabilities — not able to carry a fetus or produce the milk the newborn infant drinks. It is true we men have these steroids that help us to build muscles faster, but the price of that is likely a shortened lifespan. I cannot say we got the better end of that trade-off!
P.S. The X is not the largest and the Y is not the smallest of human chromosomes. They rank 8th and 22nd in size (out of 24 = 23 plus 1 for the Y variation). So 7 are larger than X and 2 are smaller than Y.
2 Likes
There are fungi that have multiple mating types. Basically, individuals of the same species but with different versions of the particular recognition gene are able to fuse and fertilize. But that’s quite different from the male/female pattern that is found in many other organisms.
3 Likes
That was true of Israel; Peter is quoting from the Old Testament. Though “royal priesthood” is a better translation since the individuals weren’t priests, the nation was effectively a priest nation that was supposed to draw other nations to God. The same is true of the church; not all are priests, but as a community the church is a priest community that’s supposed to draw others as well. We miss this in modern times because we are so focused on individuals, but in Bible times entire tribes would give allegiance to a new god, which is echoed in the New Testament by entire households being baptized.
3 Likes
That’s later. The initial forms came from Jewish practices, especially the synagogue.
1 Like
As Yahweh said to Abraham: “all people on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3, NIV). But my point was, that until the golden calf incident, the tribe of Levi was not yet selected to serve as priests.
I took a better look though. And yes, even before the golden calf incident Aaron and his sons are selected to serve as priests (Exodus 28). I just wonder how this connects to Exodus 32:29. I will have to do some more research.
This also has to do with the fact that if the pater familias would convert, often his whole household (including his clients) would also convert.
As far as we know, the earliest synagogues emerged in Ptolemaic Egypt, which was a Greek state. So we can’t know for sure how these interpretations came to be.
There is also the “therefore know for certain” argument in Acts 2:14-36
2 Likes
The Discovery Institute discovers nothing. It (condensing a bit) alleges that evolution can only work in a way that is materially impossible, to disguise (mea culpa for a harsh accusation) it’s basic principle of “I cannot get a grasp on how it can possibly work, therefore it does not work.”
Evolution is slow and smooth; the Discovery Institute begins with the axiom that no such thing is possible. To support this position it employs fanciful mis-math to arrive at an odds-against figure of 110 to a power greater than 100, when in reality the odds-against, per mutation, are more like 10 to a single-digit power.
Math provided on request.
The real ratio between beneficial mutations per generation in a large breeding pool is somewhere between .1 and 10, depending on the size of the pool. This figure is a wild aromatic guess, but relates well to the real world. Such a single beneficial mutation may require the passage of a thousand or more generations before it will displace the original version of its gene. Meanwhile that thousand generation span sees a thousand-ish successfully improved genes in process.
You can call this a Team Walk.
The Discovery Institute has turned its face aside from any such insight.
As a Team Walk proceeds, the eventual “irreducible complexity” manages to sneak up and take the unaware by surprise.
1 Like
Order of - -
Off topic, but true: in mid 11th Century C E the popes in Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other (In the end, there can be only one,)
Their ideological differences were subtle and many, but one strikes the funny bone (mine at any rate) - East said that the Holy Spirit emerged from the Father first, and the Son second, while West said the reverse. [[ Day One the spirit brooded over the waters, hence Spirit Precedes Son ]] vs. [[ Jesus announces the Spirit to his disciples, with no acknowledgement that Day One was significant. ]]
Picture this - both of them pretending to reverse-engineer the Unknowable Almighty. “I know more about God than you do.”
Oh, well, back to regular order.
Clearly you missed the Arnold Schwarzenegger move where he had a uterus added and bore a child while male.
Nope. I saw it.
Case in point: Firstborn Angela (currently architect of record for the researcher access app to the U C Santa Cruz-located Genome Database) grew up unattracted to either sex, hated the party dress we sent her (while a student at MIT) because it would condemn her to wearing scratchy / uncomfortable panty hose, met and married Danielle. Tough go for her papa. But witnessing their level headed and joyous life together changed me. The two offspring (one donor, two halves, both carried by Danielle, donor chosen to mimic Angela’s profile) are brilliant, and the first identifies as female.
Sexuality does not always track DNA. God made and loves everyone. They are certainly part of that.
2 Likes
Actually they didn’t. Cardinal Humbert exceeded his authority by excommunicating Patriarch Cerularius, and in anger Cerularius excommunicated Humbert and the rest of the delegation from Rome. It turned out that Humbert’s excommunication wasn’t really valid since the Pope who’d sent him – Leo – had died, and no one actually excommunicated the Pope. And it took another century and a half for the split to become evident; ordinary Christians didn’t even really notice until another century or more beyond that.
Those were later justifications as the argument took hold. Initially the East pointed out that the scripture plainly says that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” and nowhere says He proceeds from the Son. Rome actually acknowledged this at one point but asserted that since the Pope was pre-eminent and ruled the entire church he could add to the Creed – an interesting position since the addition had started in a local church (I’ve read it came from France or Spain) and Rome had opposed it on the basis that the ancient Councils had decreed the Creed to be unalterable. That was just proof to the East that the Pope had become heterodox, which they already said because nowhere in the ancient church had Rome had dominion, only preeminence.
Not really. The East was saying we can only say what the scripture says as affirmed by the Councils; Rome was saying they coud set new doctrine (while claiming it wasn’t new).
Many thanks for the corrections!
1 Like
Except that it is only purely random in the case of viruses which live right on the edge of mutations being population lethal.
As life evolved to more complex organisms the chance that mutations are lethal increased, but then it soon wasn’t purely random anymore because methods evolved to limit mutations on average to those which were less likely to be lethal. Even in bacteria the machinery to repair damage to DNA became so efficient that they began to protect damage by radiation from their own repair machinery in order to allow more variation in their genome. But that means they are controlling where the damage is allowed or not.
In humans we have observed lower mutation rates when we compare the areas which actually code proteins (known as the exome) with areas which don’t code proteins, and even lower mutation rates in areas which are more crucial for survival.
1 Like