Human, mutant, cyborg, android, robot?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pallas_Athene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A good counterexample in your tank metaphor would be those inflatable tanks used en masse by the Allies in England to conceal the location of D-Day. These were not tanks, although they looked good enough to deceive the Nazis, because did not move, shoot, nor possess armor.

Similarly, a plastic body, or programmable humanoid robot is not a human being. But a human being who remains physically alive (as determined from the brain) remains human however many artificial supports are inside or outside the skin.

ICXC NIKA
 
Dear Pallas Athene:

The problem with your footer is that counter to popular belief, love and **sex **are not synonyms.

Full stop.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
No. We can now have a human with three parents, two for their nuclear DNA and one for the mitochondrial DNA. It is a possible solution to certain inherited diseases of the mitochondria.

Biology is not a simple subject, and has a great many exceptions to its general rules.

rossum
 
A good counterexample in your tank metaphor would be those inflatable tanks used en masse by the Allies in England to conceal the location of D-Day. These were not tanks, although they looked good enough to deceive the Nazis, because did not move, shoot, nor possess armor.
Indeed. So they were just a visually confusing image, but not a real tank, because they lacked the functionality. But instead of an steel-based armored body you could have a much sturdier plastic body. Instead of a gun in the turret you could have laser weapons… etc. It may even fly. When does the change in the functionality become too great so that the “gadget” is not a tank any more?
Similarly, a plastic body, or programmable humanoid robot is not a human being. But a human being who remains physically alive (as determined from the brain) remains human however many artificial supports are inside or outside the skin.
What if the brain gets replaced with a silicon based “artificial brain”, but the rest remains the original? The functionality is the same. 🙂 Or consider that the brain is kept alive, but the rest of the body is discarded? Roald Dahl had a great short story along these lines, the title was: “William and Mary”.
 
The problem with your footer is that counter to popular belief, love and **sex **are not synonyms.
I never indicated that they were synonyms. Parental love, brotherly love, agape are all subsets of love, and have nothing to do with sexual activity. You can even have sex without any love at all. But my point was that erotic love between people will be greatly enhanced by engaging in sexual activity. It is a very good way to reinforce the “unitive aspect” of love.

Yet there are many people who consider the lack of the procreative aspect as “intrinsically evil”. Even when conception is impossible, they insist that erotic love MUST be concluded in the vagina. The partners MUST pretend that conception is the “aim of the game”. In other words the partners MUST check their rationality into the cloak room before they go to bed.
 
I can only get information from their own words. I did not invent that erotic love is “intrinsically evil” if it is not open to procreation.
 
I can only get information from their own words. I did not invent that erotic love is “intrinsically evil” if it is not open to procreation.
It is because there is a difference from the Love (big L) that is the central theme of Christianity, and the love (little L) that people imagine the Love to be.

Until you understand this difference, you won’t understand why your footer sounds… ehh… misinformed? to some of us.

And as interesting as this discussion would be, this is not the right topic at hand.
 
If it thinks walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and thinks like a duck in everything, we may as well treat it like a duck. Er… human.

I don’t know that we can rule out these creatures having souls.

And even ignoring that, it the being is capable of reasoning and feeling as we do, then it wouldn’t be just to deny them the rights of personhood. Perhaps it would be unethical to create them, but once created it would be unethical to treat them as property.

Haven’t any of you read Dune? Seen Battlestar Galactica? 😛
 
It is because there is a difference from the Love (big L) that is the central theme of Christianity, and the love (little L) that people imagine the Love to be.

Until you understand this difference, you won’t understand why your footer sounds… ehh… misinformed? to some of us.

And as interesting as this discussion would be, this is not the right topic at hand.
Actually, it is less wrong than it seems to be. We can even consider love as he understands it (romantic love). For let’s look at this:
The “duck principle” comes to the rescue. In other words, as long as the functionality remains, it is a “tank”. Once the functionality is lost, we have pile of junk.
And now let’s see: isn’t some “functionality” missing from “homosexual love”? Like procreation?

I wonder if “duck principle” won’t get dropped… 🙂 But still, it hasn’t been dropped yet, so we can look further.
Mutations are accidental. There is no need for a blueprint. In the world of evolving, self-modifying computer programs the end result cannot be predicted from the starting parameters. And the end result can be very much superior compared to the original.
We were talking about tanks. To the best of my knowledge, they do not mutate and some sort of blueprints are necessary here.
The same “type”? What does that mean?
“Type” like T-34, Panther and the like.
Isn’t the size considered to be an “accident” in the Thomistic world of philosophy? (Assuming that you subscribe to the philosophy of Aquinas). If you do, then the material is just an “accident”, the size is just an “accident”.
Yes, size is an accident. But not “just an accident”. An accident is simply something that does not exist without a substance (you can have no “size” that is not a size of something). A “property”, if you wish (although, strictly speaking, “property” is a specific type of an “accident” in Thomistic philosophy).
Now you put your finger on the crux of the problem. I am not against the concept of “essence” on a theoretical ground. The definition of “the essence is what makes something what it is” is reasonable and logical - at the first approximation. The problem comes when you try to apply it to a special case. What is the “essence” of a “chair”? Just ponder it to see the difficulties. Something we can sit on? But we can sit on a table, or a chamber pot or even on a rock, and we do not call those chairs.

Consider the cyborgs. We start with a bona-fide human being, and keep on replacing its biological tissue with artificial prostheses - one at a time. You said that the different building blocks will change the “essence”. I would think that having an artificial hip-joint does not make the person’s “essence” disappear. So, is the building material part of this nebulous “essence”?
You seem to be imagining that essence is similar to definition. It is not. It is more similar to a blueprint. Blueprint describes an ideal instance, even if something non-ideal can be associated with it.

Let’s look at your examples:
Now you put your finger on the crux of the problem. I am not against the concept of “essence” on a theoretical ground. The definition of “the essence is what makes something what it is” is reasonable and logical - at the first approximation. The problem comes when you try to apply it to a special case. What is the “essence” of a “chair”? Just ponder it to see the difficulties. Something we can sit on? But we can sit on a table, or a chamber pot or even on a rock, and we do not call those chairs.
So, you cannot define “chair” using just the actual functionality…? Sure. But try to define it using the intended functionality (the final cause), the one that describes the ideal case: “A chair is a piece of furniture that is meant for sitting.”. Suddenly, a table doesn’t fit the definition (a rock doesn’t fit because this definition also has “genus” (“a piece of furniture”) and not just “differentia”). And a broken chair does fit. As it should (so one could look for spare parts of such and such chair and not just “spare parts of pile of junk”).

I guess it is not an example that supports your case…
Consider the cyborgs. We start with a bona-fide human being, and keep on replacing its biological tissue with artificial prostheses - one at a time. You said that the different building blocks will change the “essence”. I would think that having an artificial hip-joint does not make the person’s “essence” disappear. So, is the building material part of this nebulous “essence”?
You also need substances to make sense of things. A substance “human” simply does not include any of those prostheses. There is no such thing as “a cyborg”. Thus we have no problem here as well.

As you can see, “functionality approach” runs into great problems and “essences approach” does not.
 
If it thinks walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and thinks like a duck in everything, we may as well treat it like a duck. Er… human.
Exactly. 🙂
I don’t know that we can rule out these creatures having souls.
Until someone can give a precise definition of “souls” and a reliable method to find out if one has it or not, it is a useless concept.
And even ignoring that, it the being is capable of reasoning and feeling as we do, then it wouldn’t be just to deny them the rights of personhood. Perhaps it would be unethical to create them, but once created it would be unethical to treat them as property.
Very well said.
Haven’t any of you read Dune? Seen Battlestar Galactica? 😛
And Asimov’s robots, also robots created by Stanislaw Lem… and the rest of great thinkers and their stories. 🙂
 
And now let’s see: isn’t some “functionality” missing from “homosexual love”? Like procreation?
Love and procreation have nothing to do with each other. One can love without procreation, and one can procreate without love.
We were talking about tanks. To the best of my knowledge, they do not mutate and some sort of blueprints are necessary here.
Tanks are artifacts. But let’s stay with them. One can remove the tracks (caterpillar threads) and install a hovercraft engine. Is it still a “tank”? One can even install a helicopter-like transportation method… is it still a tank?
Yes, size is an accident. But not “just an accident”. An accident is simply something that does not exist without a substance (you can have no “size” that is not a size of something).
Without giving a proper definition of “substance” this sentence is vacuous. Let’s consider: “pebble”, “stone”, “boulder”, “hill” and “mountain”. They only differ in size, yet we differentiate them. Do they have the same “substance”? If they do, why the different names, based upon their size? If they do not, what is their essence or substance?
You seem to be imagining that essence is similar to definition. It is not. It is more similar to a blueprint. Blueprint describes an ideal instance, even if something non-ideal can be associated with it.
A blueprint would be specific type of definition.
So, you cannot define “chair” using just the actual functionality…? Sure. But try to define it using the intended functionality (the final cause), the one that describes the ideal case: “A chair is a piece of furniture that is meant for sitting.”. Suddenly, a table doesn’t fit the definition (a rock doesn’t fit because this definition also has “genus” (“a piece of furniture”) and not just “differentia”). And a broken chair does fit. As it should (so one could look for spare parts of such and such chair and not just “spare parts of pile of junk”).
The intent (or final cause) is subjective. Take a scythe. It is meant to cut grass or wheat… etc. Make a minor modification of its shape - straighten out the blade, and it will be useless for cutting grass, but it will be an excellent weapon. A minor change in the shape (which is not what “form” is supposed to be) and from a farming implement we get a weapon. A sofa is a furniture, it is meant to be sit on, and yet - it is not a chair. What about a futon? Or a swing out on the porch?
You also need substances to make sense of things. A substance “human” simply does not include any of those prostheses. There is no such thing as “a cyborg”. Thus we have no problem here as well.
What is the “essence” or “substance” of a human? That is the problem this thread was all about. A cyborg is a transitory entity, starting with a human and ending with a fully metallic being. If you say that the building material is just an “accident” , then I will agree… but then you would describe a “robot” to be a “human”. Are you comfortable with that? I am.
As you can see, “functionality approach” runs into great problems and “essences approach” does not.
There are no problems with the “functionality”, but since the “essence” is fluid, it is useless.
 
Pallas Athene, could you provide a definition or an understand of how you view love? I’ve been trying to follow your posts but cannot find out what you mean by it. Do you mean love as a type of intense affection? An emotional response? Or do you see it as a act of will? Thanks!
 
Pallas Athene, could you provide a definition or an understand of how you view love? I’ve been trying to follow your posts but cannot find out what you mean by it. Do you mean love as a type of intense affection? An emotional response? Or do you see it as a act of will? Thanks!
The word “love” has many meanings. Erotic love is based on chemistry, attraction. Friendship is based upon mutual interest. Agape is based upon compassion. The love one feels toward one’s child is emotion, desire to protect… One can love a good steak for its taste. Or a piece of music for the emotion it generates. Love has lots and lots of facets. The trouble is that there is only one word for all these different kinds, so it is easy to play hide and seek.

What is nonsense is the definition that love is an “act of will”. One can decide to beat someone to a bloody pulp, and that would be an “act of will”. The definition needs to be enhanced and extended to make sense. Sometimes they say that love is to “will the good of the other”. Also nonsense. I can “will” all the good things to others, but it will not make any difference.

It could be said that “love is acting in the best interest of others”. That might be acceptable, but it still is deficient. A lung machine helps the patient to maintain his ability to breathe, but we do not call it “love”.

Basically love would originate as an emotion (compassion is an emotion, too) and would or should manifest itself in actions. Without this manifestation it would be an empty word.
 
There are no problems with the “functionality”, but since the “essence” is fluid, it is useless.
Of course there are problems with “functionality”. You have tried to use it and you cannot find out what is a chair, a tank, a human. Yes, those are significant disadvantages. It’s like object-oriented programming without classes (for yes, essences are a bit like classes in OOP).

On the other hand, the problems with essences that you see are mostly caused by misuse of various terms (“essence”, “substance”, “accident” etc.).

For example:
What is the “essence” or “substance” of a human? That is the problem this thread was all about. A cyborg is a transitory entity, starting with a human and ending with a fully metallic being. If you say that the building material is just an “accident” , then I will agree… but then you would describe a “robot” to be a “human”. Are you comfortable with that? I am.
  1. Building material is not “accident”. It is “matter”.
  2. “Accident” is not “something that doesn’t matter”. It is a “property”.
By the way, I have already told you that the term “accident” is not used in the way you use it:
Yes, size is an accident. But not “just an accident”. An accident is simply something that does not exist without a substance (you can have no “size” that is not a size of something). A “property”, if you wish (although, strictly speaking, “property” is a specific type of an “accident” in Thomistic philosophy).
It would be nice if you would not ignore the explanations that have already been given…
 
The problem with “functionality” is that several objects may be similar in that regard.

A chair is an object designed for the human body to “sit” on. But then you have to define sitting as done by the human body. Furthermore, a bench, a stool, or a couch could all have much the same functionality.

The more complex the object becomes, the more specific the functionality. A tank (militarily) is an armored vehicle designed to move and fight on land; if it moved and fought on water, it would be a gunboat or ship; if in the air, it would be a helicopter or plane. This functionality determines the physical properties.

But unlike chairs and tanks, the human being is not made for a purpose, but lives out his own purpose. How then to define the “functionality”?

ICXC NIKA.
 
The word “love” has many meanings. Erotic love is based on chemistry, attraction. Friendship is based upon mutual interest. Agape is based upon compassion. The love one feels toward one’s child is emotion, desire to protect… …] Love has lots and lots of facets. The trouble is that there is only one word for all these different kinds, so it is easy to play hide and seek.
In bold: Exactly. There are so many “situations” and “feelings” that we call “love”, that we often confuse which love we are talking about. Which is why your footnote makes no sense: you try to compare one thing that YOU call love, to the thing WE call love. In simpler words, you are comparing a flower to a tree.

Now I am getting completely off-topic. Hopefully for the last time (if you’d like to discuss love, we can start another topic).

Let’s give color to these loves. This is our color/botanic guide:

Red: This is the fruit. The eros. It is what people feel for others. This is what scientists often try to pin down, using hormonal levels to define it, but never truly understand how deep it is. Dopamine, adrenaline, serotonin, oxytocin - this is what we “feel” when “in love”. It is a feeling that makes people happy, feel good about themselves and their loved ones.** It is what move people together**. For Christians, this is what moves us towards creating new life - like a fruit, it is full of seeds, just waiting to be cared for to sprout a new plant. It is also delicious, moving us into wanting to produce fruits.

Pink: This is the flower. The philia. Your definition hurts a little, as it is NOT based upon mutual interest. Anyway. It is about giving and caring about someone else, with no strings attached. You don’t help your friend just so they can owe you one. You don’t do it out of obligation either. You do it because you sincerely want to help them. It is beneficial to both parties. Like the flowers, this is the beauty we see coming from **love **. It is there to be appreciated, to make us feel good about the tree, to bring about insects and other animals and possibly be pollinated into something new.

Blue: This is the tree, the trunk. This is our “agape”. God’s love for us and ours for Him, and the source of all “true love” out there. This is the pure essence of love. This is Charity. This is the roots deep under the ground, the phloem that transports water, sap and sugar to keep the **love ** alive, to make the flowers bloom, to make the fruits grow.

A tree does not take benefit to **itself **in forming flowers and fruits. In fact, it uses up energy. This love is often painful, full of suffering. It is about giving up self. Sacrifice. This is something beautiful and life-giving, but covered in bark, hidden by the soil.

You help someone because that’s what love compels you to do - you help homeless, who’ll never be able to pay you back, out of love. You are kind to your enemies, who you deeply dislike, but who you love either way.

It’s what a mother **DOES **for her children: giving up her free time, her body, her desires, her ambitions, just to see them well. What a husband does: giving up his time, his youth, his money, to care for a wife and their children.

And like the tree, this love doesn’t concern itself with pleasure in someone else’s presence, doesn’t care about one’s own happiness. The tree stays ugly, to make her branches beautiful. When I stay with patients, ill, dying and angry, I don’t feel good in their presence. But I stay with them, for their sake, for their well-being. To make them comfortable, to make them happy. Even though the flowers will wilt, and the fruits will fall, and nothing will be given back to the tree. Still, I care. A mother cares. For them.

**Friendship **is what happens when **love ** works out in the end, bringing people together, making enemies turn into friends. Romance is what happens when friends, already moved by their **love **, decide to mutually love one another, and bring more into their lives.

Eventually, the fruits will fall. The seeds will germinate. A new **love ** will come about. The first tree will get stronger, the more trees that come about. Just like any forest, its roots will dig deeper, it’s trunk will grow stronger. More and more it will grow. We see God’s love pour on us; we, in turn, make that love produce more and more love. For His pleasure in seeing a forest rise from our small grove.

And you are trying to compare, in your footnote, this **love **with that love. You are trying to accuse us of praising love, while denying love.

We deny “love”, yes. We deny the seedless fruits, the same way we deny the ugly flowers, as those will never be more than they already are, as those will never bring more to the forest we are trying to build.

Now, as true businessmen, we praise seedless fruits (easier to eat, just as delicious). We also praise fruits with seeds, but because it is fruit, not because it has seeds. Now, we buy fruits without seeds; we eat fruits and spit the seeds in the garbage. We are not helping the forest grow; we are just helping ourselves to what it offers.

The grove - with the trees full of bark - is the central theme of Christianity. And we label the seedless fruits as an evil invention, as it goes completely against what we are for; as it distorts what the grove IS about.

Today, people think the tree is about the delicious fruits and beautiful flowers. For us, the fruits, the flowers, everything in the grove is still about the tree.
 
I would say that “human” defines only those minded beings who are human in body.

**If **apes or dolphins, etc, were ever found to possess human-class minds (and I for one do **not **hold that that is or will ever be established), then a new superset of being would need to be coined, to include human life and all of the nonhumans of rational mind.

Aliens are another matter altogether. If they came to Earth from space, their arrival would prove that they had a mind at least as good as our own.

If however, we met them on their world, we would probably define them as animals so that we could strip-mine their planet without annoying guilt feelings.

ICXC NIKA
I think this was a problem Pallas Athena was trying to illustrate. In fact, this philosophical error: type 2 is non-human is what allowed slavery to go unchecked for hundreds of years and allowed the preborn to be exterminate until even after nuclear medicine showed how human they are, the misclassification still exists and justifies their deaths.
 
The word “love” has many meanings. Erotic love is based on chemistry, attraction. Friendship is based upon mutual interest. Agape is based upon compassion. The love one feels toward one’s child is emotion, desire to protect… One can love a good steak for its taste. Or a piece of music for the emotion it generates. Love has lots and lots of facets. The trouble is that there is only one word for all these different kinds, so it is easy to play hide and seek.

What is nonsense is the definition that love is an “act of will”. One can decide to beat someone to a bloody pulp, and that would be an “act of will”. The definition needs to be enhanced and extended to make sense. Sometimes they say that love is to “will the good of the other”. Also nonsense. I can “will” all the good things to others, but it will not make any difference.

It could be said that “love is acting in the best interest of others”. That might be acceptable, but it still is deficient. A lung machine helps the patient to maintain his ability to breathe, but we do not call it “love”.

Basically love would originate as an emotion (compassion is an emotion, too) and would or should manifest itself in actions. Without this manifestation it would be an empty word.
I wish I could discuss this with you in detail to hopefully better explain to you the Christian perspective on love, but due to my own commitments and the nature of internet forums I cannot. Hopefully I can at least give you and anyone else who might be reading this a clearer view on the issue. If I thought what you thought about how Christians view love I too would find it utter nonsense.

I believe that dismissing the definition of love as an “act of will” requires more than just saying it is nonsense. Aristotle and Aquinas would certainly agree that love is “willing the good of another”. All you did was create a strawman argument by presenting a very weak definition of love that slightly resembled the actual definition. When you say “will” what I believe you really mean is “wish”. Willing is some sort of act where effort is given ordered to the good of the beloved. A lung machine is just that, a machine. It certainly has no ability to choose or will anything. The pulmonologist who prescribed the machine would be committing an act of love towards the patient, or loving the patient.

Feel free to skip this following paragraph if you are accept some sort of dualism:

Now if you are a hardline materialist you of course wouldn’t accept the concept of free will. You must also deny the potential immaterial soul’s ability to be an entity that could affect a material object. This would render the definition of love I am proposing impossible. Love would have to be reduced to the level of neuroscience and reactionary brain functions. I cannot abandon my definition of love until I reject the soul. I will never reject the soul, because I have chosen to to believe I have the ability to free choose. I either live my life thinking I have free will under my own control, or else I live my life under the illusion that I have free will but have no ability or control to change this as it is only materialistic reaction to my genetic makeup and environmental factors.

There are often times where I don’t feel like doing something for my wife, but when I will the good of my wife by performing some act that is ordered to her good despite the fact that I don’t feel like it, I am loving her. This would be the agape love that you described as being based on compassion. Self-sacrificial acts for the good of the other isn’t depended upon feeling compassion for an individual though I agree the two are rarely separated.

In conclusion, I wish I could better articulate the perspective of love that I have embraced because it is the most beautiful thing that can exist. It’s a shame that Thomas Aquinas himself can’t post on these forums. 😉
 
In bold: Exactly. There are so many “situations” and “feelings” that we call “love”, that we often confuse which love we are talking about. Which is why your footnote makes no sense: you try to compare one thing that YOU call love, to the thing WE call love. In simpler words, you are comparing a flower to a tree.

Now I am getting completely off-topic. Hopefully for the last time (if you’d like to discuss love, we can start another topic).

Let’s give color to these loves. This is our color/botanic guide:

Red: This is the fruit. The eros. It is what people feel for others. This is what scientists often try to pin down, using hormonal levels to define it, but never truly understand how deep it is. Dopamine, adrenaline, serotonin, oxytocin - this is what we “feel” when “in love”. It is a feeling that makes people happy, feel good about themselves and their loved ones.** It is what move people together**. For Christians, this is what moves us towards creating new life - like a fruit, it is full of seeds, just waiting to be cared for to sprout a new plant. It is also delicious, moving us into wanting to produce fruits.

Pink: This is the flower. The philia. Your definition hurts a little, as it is NOT based upon mutual interest. Anyway. It is about giving and caring about someone else, with no strings attached. You don’t help your friend just so they can owe you one. You don’t do it out of obligation either. You do it because you sincerely want to help them. It is beneficial to both parties. Like the flowers, this is the beauty we see coming from **love **. It is there to be appreciated, to make us feel good about the tree, to bring about insects and other animals and possibly be pollinated into something new.

Blue: This is the tree, the trunk. This is our “agape”. God’s love for us and ours for Him, and the source of all “true love” out there. This is the pure essence of love. This is Charity. This is the roots deep under the ground, the phloem that transports water, sap and sugar to keep the **love ** alive, to make the flowers bloom, to make the fruits grow.

A tree does not take benefit to **itself **in forming flowers and fruits. In fact, it uses up energy. This love is often painful, full of suffering. It is about giving up self. Sacrifice. This is something beautiful and life-giving, but covered in bark, hidden by the soil.

You help someone because that’s what love compels you to do - you help homeless, who’ll never be able to pay you back, out of love. You are kind to your enemies, who you deeply dislike, but who you love either way.

It’s what a mother **DOES **for her children: giving up her free time, her body, her desires, her ambitions, just to see them well. What a husband does: giving up his time, his youth, his money, to care for a wife and their children.

And like the tree, this love doesn’t concern itself with pleasure in someone else’s presence, doesn’t care about one’s own happiness. The tree stays ugly, to make her branches beautiful. When I stay with patients, ill, dying and angry, I don’t feel good in their presence. But I stay with them, for their sake, for their well-being. To make them comfortable, to make them happy. Even though the flowers will wilt, and the fruits will fall, and nothing will be given back to the tree. Still, I care. A mother cares. For them.

**Friendship **is what happens when **love ** works out in the end, bringing people together, making enemies turn into friends. Romance is what happens when friends, already moved by their **love **, decide to mutually love one another, and bring more into their lives.

Eventually, the fruits will fall. The seeds will germinate. A new **love ** will come about. The first tree will get stronger, the more trees that come about. Just like any forest, its roots will dig deeper, it’s trunk will grow stronger. More and more it will grow. We see God’s love pour on us; we, in turn, make that love produce more and more love. For His pleasure in seeing a forest rise from our small grove.

And you are trying to compare, in your footnote, this **love **with that love. You are trying to accuse us of praising love, while denying love.

We deny “love”, yes. We deny the seedless fruits, the same way we deny the ugly flowers, as those will never be more than they already are, as those will never bring more to the forest we are trying to build.

Now, as true businessmen, we praise seedless fruits (easier to eat, just as delicious). We also praise fruits with seeds, but because it is fruit, not because it has seeds. Now, we buy fruits without seeds; we eat fruits and spit the seeds in the garbage. We are not helping the forest grow; we are just helping ourselves to what it offers.

The grove - with the trees full of bark - is the central theme of Christianity. And we label the seedless fruits as an evil invention, as it goes completely against what we are for; as it distorts what the grove IS about.

Today, people think the tree is about the delicious fruits and beautiful flowers. For us, the fruits, the flowers, everything in the grove is still about the tree.
:yup: Nice, do you mind if I use this for my class?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top