Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Anthropocentricism
Message-ID: <592@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 14:26:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.592
Posted: Wed Jul 31 14:26:37 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 08:17:24 EDT
References: <855@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1226@pyuxd.UUCP> <942@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1298@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 75
Summary:
In article <1298@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>>>Why should anyone care about survival, or maximal freedom, or optimized
>>>>benefits? [WINGATE]
>
>
>> Besides, practical application of this often leads to conflicts in goals.
>> It's the principles that you use to resolve these conflicts that count.
>
>Yes, indeed. Arbitrary criteria like "MY God says you can't do this, and thus
>this behavior 'hurts' me and should be eradicated" can be eliminated right off
>the top as candidates.
>
This does not answer his question. What was asked is:
When survival or maximal freedom of two people are in direct conflict
how do *you* decide who's survival or freedom to honor? What
principles do you propose for resolving conflicts generated by your
primary principles?
>> Besides, you simply are not in any position to judge why the words were
>> written. You are taking anthropocentricism in such a strong sense that by
>> your definition, anything written down is anthropocentric. Who are you to
>> say that, because it mentions only humans, a God who sees all the rest of
>> the universe could not have been the source? You have set up a standard
>> which no writing could ever possibly meet.
>
>YOU have set up that standard yourself by twisting what I said. The point was
>that the writings of the Bible claim a central point in the universe for humans
>above all (or most) others. Since we know this not to be true, since we know
>other things mentioned in those writings are not to be taken literally,
>can we thus look closely at the possibility that the reason behind statements
>about "man" as God's light of the world are rooted in anthropocentrism?
>
Again, since it is written *for* humans, it quite naturally
concentrates on them! It does *not* actually claim any ultimately
central position for humanity. Also, if the Bible is read as talking
about *spritual* matters then trying to read it *literally* becomes
*invalid* and any arguments based on the "falsity" of such a "literal"
interpretation are also invalid.
>> Rich, on what basis do you make the claim that the Bible should refer to
>> alien races (or whatever)? I've already stated that I do not take the story
>> literally (although on a metaphorical level it is quite close to man's
>> current conception of the creation of the earth). Hanging your entire
>> argument on that one verse is rather weak, especially when you consider that
>> the Hebrew really doesn't say "In the beginning, God created the heavens and
>> the earth" but rather something more like
>>
>> "In the beginning when God *was beginning to create* the heavens and the
>> earth"
>
>It's not just one verse, it's the whole order of things listed which forms the
>basis of creationism! I don't care whether the Bible talks about people,
>aliens, or unicorns. But if it claims to be the story of the creation of the
>universe and contradicts the facts, then it can be assumed that an author
>writing about these things wrote not from fact but from his own view about
>humanity's place in the spectrum of the universe. Not a horrible thing:
>we like to think of ourselves as important. But to then attribute to a god
>that same line of thinking is preposterous.
>
Again, you seem to miss the point, if you do not *expect*
literalism then violations of "literal" "truth" are *irrelevent*.
How about looking at the creation story as an *allegory* about the
relationship btween God and the Universe! In order to make his point
the (human) author took the then current story of the origin of the
world(the Babylonian creation myth) and shifted its emphasis to the
single God of his faith, rather than the original pantheon. Now what
you see is a story emphasizing God's *responsibility* for the state of
the Universe that really has nothing to say about *how* He shaped it.
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen