Glenn wrote:
PS: In the Flood account, even though it is imbedded in the cosmology of the
>times, the theology transcends the theology of the times. And, please note
>that belief in the factuality of the occurrence of the Flood did
>not make any
>difference to the Babylonians. They fully believed in the
>historical reality
>of the Flood; but, that gave them no reason to believe in the God of the
>Hebrews. The question that Gen 6-9 posed to them is, Which is the superior
>God?
>1. The head god of Babylonia who could not sleep at night because
>humans were
>making so much noise, or the God of the Hebrews who neither slumbered nor
>slept? It seems obvious without circular argument that the latter is
>superior.
>2. The head god of Babylonia who tried to destroy all mankind so that he
>could sleep undisturbed, i. e., a self-centered capricious god, or
>the God of
>the Hebrews who destroyed mankind because of their extreme sin, that is, a
>God of justice? Again, it seems obvious without circular argument that the
>latter is superior.
GM: Once again, all of this is nice, but it can only be conceived of as
evidence
of superiority if in fact God isn't self centered. If God really did bring
the flood because he couldn't sleep, then the Babylonian theology is
superior. Sorry, what you are doing is begging the question. You set up a
set of ethics based upon Judeo Christian theology and then judge the other
religions as not living up to those standards. That is circular.
PS: >3. The gods of Babylonia who were so frightened by the breakdown
>of nature at
>the Flood that they sat in a corner of the heavenly temple cowering and
>moaning, or the God of the Hebrews who was in complete control from the
>beginning? It seems obvious without circular argument that the latter is
>superior.
GM: It seems obvious only from the perspective of a person who believes in one
God. Once again, circular logic.
PS: But, I think these contrasts alone testify
>even to the
>unbelieving (whether they repent or not) that the God of the Bible is
>superior to the Babylonian god(s); and this superiority is obvious without
>circular reasoning.
GM: No, you have precisely engaged in circular reasoning. YOu assume
1. Judaic ethics are the true and superior.
2. Babylonian theology didn't live up to judaic ethics
3. therefore Babylonian theology is inferior.
You have assumed the conclusion--perfect circularity.
PS: It is not circular reasoning. Instead of gods, lets us say the issue is
From the standpoint of character (broadly ethics) which man is superior as a
husband? Suppose you say to a woman, You can have one of two husbands: One
works half a day; the other works a whole day. One is capricious, the other
repects a sense of fair play. One is scared to death of thunder and
lightning; the other remains calm and in control. One relies on welfare for
food; the other sustains himself.
Are you telling me that the woman would have to have a Judaic ethic; or she
might just as soon choose the weak, capricious, scaredy-cat bum as the
strong, just, self-controlled reliable man? I don't care what culture she
comes from, even if she has never heard of a Judaic ethic, she is certainly
going to know which one of these two men has the superior character; and it
is not going to be the weak, capricious, scaredy-cat bum.
The same would be true if the choice were between two possible business
partners. Virtually anyone anywhere in the world would judge the strong,
just, self-controlled reliable man as superior. It has nothing to do with
assuming a Judaic ethic.
The God in the biblical account of the Flood is superior in character to the
god(s) in the Babylonian account; and, anyone can see it.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 25 2001 - 01:06:09 EST