Re: [asa] Random and design

"Reciprocal Altruism: Love thy Neighbor"
   
  Are you kidding me?!
   
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
   
  Please don't label something as 'Golden Rule' which actually serves to undermine that very rule by replacing divine justice and meaning with a naturalistic basis.
   
  If Pim wants to invent his own version of 'reciprocal altruism,' then that's another thing altogether. But who is Robert Trivers? (Scientific proof of 'love thy neighbour'?)
   
  Arago
   
   
  p.s. Nothing has been suggested by me about either abandoning science or rejecting God's creation.
   
  
Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
    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.

                                 
---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice

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 20:33:58 2006