>-----Original Message-----
>From: PHSEELY@aol.com [mailto:PHSEELY@aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:03 AM
>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?
This is a non-sequitur. In your claim that the Biblical theology is
superior, one must assume some standard of superiority. Your standard is
that theologies are better if they are most closely akin to the Judeo
Christian theology.
In your example above the woman will chose the industrious man ONLY if she
is using a standard that industrious men are next to heavenliness. But she
very well may decide that the guy is a geek, and she wants fun/good sex
rather than some boring clog in the corporate world. And I can assure you
from many years of observations, that women don't always chose the guy you
would have them choose. Often they want adventure, or think they can tame
the wild beast in the man or whatever. Or have you never heard of women
marrying the bum?
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.
Not if reliability isn't the thing she prizes most.
>
>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.
This doesn't apply to theologies. Tell me in detail how you decide that the
Judeo-christian theology is better. Is it because it has one God who isn't
polygamous? I repeat, that can only be a better theology if it is true. If
there really are 10,000 Hindu Gods, then Christian theology not only isn't
better, it is wrong!
>
>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.
Why for killing off humanity with love while the other did it in hate? It
all depends upon which religion is metaphysically true. If there is no
Jehovah, then God in the flood account is not only inferior, he is
non-existent. To get to the place you are, you simply have to assume that
your view is correct before you can then conclude that your view is better.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 15:29:12 EST