Re: [asa] Random and design

My position seeks a link between what God is telling us through the
Scriptures and what God is teaching us through His Creation. If
evolution is how God created then why should we ignore its impact on
these issues of morality and ethics.

Reciprocal Altruism: Love thy Neighbor, "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you."

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral
principle found in virtually all major religions and cultures, which
simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is
arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human
rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it
in different ways:

     * "Love your neighbor as yourself." — Moses (ca. 1525-1405 BCE)
in the Torah, Leviticus 19:18
     * "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." —
Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)
     * "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel
(ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)
     * "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus
(ca. 5 BCE—33 CE) in the Gospels, Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27 (affirming of
Moses)— Matthew 7:12
     * "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." — Muhammad (c. 571
– 632 CE) in The Farewell Sermon.

Do I expect the worst? Perhaps you can explain. As far as Janice is
concerned, her 'contributions' do not seem to support your
interpretation. I expect the best and am prepared to deal with the
worst.

Why are you suggesting that one should abandon science to find a 'new
view of love and trust'? Or why are you suggesting that such a love
and trust is even possible when rejecting God's Creation?

Just a thought

On Nov 26, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:

> Your position priviledges the evolutionary view of morality and
> ethics. For example, where does the term 'reciprocal altruism' come
> from? Is such a view consistent with responsible Christian theology
> or is it a forced negotiation with naturalistic thought? The irony,
> of course, is that 'expect the worst' is exemplary of Pim's logic
> and not Janice's, the latter who seems to tend towards 'hope for
> the best'.
>
> If you were to un-hitch your views of Christianity from absolute
> allegiance to evolutionary logic, Pim, a new view of love and trust
> and divine justice may become possible. Why trust Trivers? Just a
> thought.
>
> Arago
>
>
> Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How does my position show a misunderstanding? It has nothing to do
> with deserving our love, it has all to do with a position of trust
> towards one's neighbors, irregardless of whether or not the neighbor
> deserves it.
>
> Love they neighbor seems at odds with hope for the best, expect the
> worst.
>
> The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new
> Yahoo! Mail.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 26 19:24:25 2006