Splenda is Perverse: my thoughts on the “Natural Order” of things.
Recently I saw a remark that (paraphrased) said, “you never know what man’s perversion of the natural could lead to.”
I was sorely tempted to reply, “Splenda?”
But I held my tongue. Of course, the original comment was in reply to the “normalization” of “aberrant sexuality”, the kind of language I always feel is used in too broad of strokes. There are still sects of Christianity that feel that any sex that isn’t intended to produce progeny is aberrant, so how do we define what is or isn’t good? (A conversation for another day. Bear with me.) But in any case, to say that “aberrant sexuality” is man “perverting the natural order” also seems to me to be a bit ridiculous. It’s defining what is natural, here on Earth, in relation to God’s intent.
Are we really very sure that we know what God wants our planet to be like?
Does God want us to have microwaves?
Does God want us to have cell phones?
Drive cars?
Drink things sweetened with Splenda?
Does he want us to cage animals in zoos?
Feed dogs prepared meals from tin cans?
Wear polyester?
Live in cities?
Watch television?
Buy food that comes in cardboard containers?
Wear makeup?
Dye our hair?
You may think that I’m being sarcastic, so let me assure you that I am not. Humanity has given shape to the world we now live in. This is not my Father’s world. From the cement skyscrapers blocking our view of the night sky to the McDonald’s wrapper tangled in the bushes in my backyard, this is not my Father’s world. This is our world, and the imprint of humanity “perverting the natural order” is all over the freaking place. I’m telling you, Splenda is perverse. Sugar ought to be sugar, dogs ought to be treated like dogs, people ought to know how to put seeds in the ground and get food from them. To think that our daily lives align with the natural order is truly laughable, unless one truly believes that humanity (given it’s dominion) ought to be able to define what the natural order is.
In which case, why can’t two men decide that there are enough procreators out there, and they can love whom they will?
Again, I am not joking around here. You will rarely read me being more serious than this. If your argument is against perverting nature, take off that polyester shirt when you’re making it.
Okay, maybe not.
My point remains. Humanity, (or at least Western humanity) is removed from nature. Our perception of the natural order is perverted. We really shouldn’t be making that argument unless we’re ready to give up an awful lot of comfort.
Discuss below.
Stephanie replied:
“We really shouldn’t be making that argument unless we’re ready to give up an awful lot of comfort.”
I couldn’t agree more. Too many times I’ve seen people willing to have the homosexual debate with someone else, inserting a comment like “you never know what man’s perversion of the natural could lead to.” and not willing to apply that to anything in their own lives.
Perhaps in their eyes, it’s simply not the same as someone loving another person of the same sex so they don’t give it any credit.
June 5, 2009 at 2:31 pm. Permalink.
Renee Miller replied:
Polyester? It’s a sin. And sin is sin. I’m not joking. Leviticus 19:19 “Do not wear clothing made of two different kinds of material”.
Wait… isn’t it the polyester wearing, finger wagging, tell-you-how-what’s-wrong-in-your-life-ignore-the-finished-work-of-the-cross-people that drink splenda?giggle. sorry. woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Good post!
June 5, 2009 at 3:09 pm. Permalink.
Stephanie replied:
Ok, don’t mean to interfere here but Renee! I don’t think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed…….THAT WAS GOOD AND SO RIGHT ON!
June 5, 2009 at 3:41 pm. Permalink.
Sidney Carton replied:
Splenda IS perverse, and so is margarine. No, I’m not kidding, that stuff is weird, and particularly with Splenda, there are some serious questions as to how we metabolize stuff like that.
As to nature, There is something to the argument that nature is not the best teacher of ethics. After all, in the animal kingdom, it is perfectly natural to rape possible mates in order to pass along genetic material, kill one’s young, abandon a pregnant mate to raise the children alone, and eat one’s neighbors. As bad as society might be, I see no great attraction in fixing it by applying the ethics of the African Savannah or the Amazon rainforest to it.
June 5, 2009 at 4:01 pm. Permalink.
faemom replied:
You’re right. We have imprinted ourselves on this planet. We have made it unnatural. To say that we are subverting natural order because of sexuality is far from the truth. Nothing is more natural than sex or love. What is unnatural is consuming more than we need, trashing our own habitat, killing our selves in mass suicide, not thinking of future consequences of our actions and what they mean to the next generation or the next. Are we still upset over two men marrying and setting up house when there are so many other things that are endanger our lives and the lives our children? Honestly. I think I need to slam my head into something.
June 7, 2009 at 5:41 am. Permalink.
Christian Beyer replied:
GREAT POST! (Can you tell this subject is close to my heart?) Anyway, while we’re on the subject, mind if do a little trolling?:
http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/god-says-skip-the-salad-but-bring-on-the-bbq/
http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/food-pyramid-of-death/
June 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm. Permalink.
Susie replied:
Nice post. emphaticastersik.com is killer.
March 10, 2010 at 3:55 am. Permalink.