We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Elsewhere on this blog we're reliably informed that, for example, monogamy is unnatural and persists as an artifact of religious tradition and not of inherent will, choice, integrity, and spirit. We're equally reliably informed that G-d wishes us fun sex per a fitness lifestyle-slash-obsession.
Various other deconstructions appear from time to time on this vague Darwinian trajectory, but they appear in and among regular uncommentaried traditional religious verse. It's an interesting - if unelaborated-upon - contrast.
I'm genuinely curious if Christ's Hand has meaning beyond the figurative, and what even the figurative could mean beyond rhetoric.
Or is the aim to lay down just the presumed nature of animal instinct so as contrast it with or to make indefinite allusions to a backdrop of alluded religiosity? You can see what would lead one to ask.
I'm asking a genuine question seeking to relate the purported essential nature of the Christian spiritual trajectory to physical life.
I see no greater issue than that in the entire biblical body and work; I'm a little shocked to learn that that's not taken as seriously among ostensible traditional conservatives as I'd thought. I especially find the Darwinist reductionism - and its nihilistic determinism on so many topics - perplexing.
That's where the question came from: Is the point that given an accidental, evolutionary progression, the human animal sort of accidentally stumbles on faith but never really reaches free will? Because that's sort of heavy duty predestination-with-a-twist. Haven't seen hardcore predestination since the Old Country, although naturally they had zero use for an accidental Universe. Those two principles kinda disagree.
Why bother with traditional religion? If Darwin rules and man is a circumstantial, mass-of-cells product of blind process, why bother?