The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Good News! » » "Preach the Gospel at all times..." » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
Fallacy of egocentrism.


Quote:
No, sorry.


Ooops, didn't write what it *was*. It would be more accurately called "Theocentrism".

And I would have been more accurate had I called it the Judeo/Christian worldview, as opposed to the Christian worldview.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Clifford the Red
View Profile
Inner circle
LA, California
1933 Posts

Profile of Clifford the Red
Quote:
On 2005-11-20 11:35, Chessmann wrote:
Quote:
Fallacy of egocentrism.


Quote:
No, sorry.


Ooops, didn't write what it *was*. It would be more accurately called "Theocentrism".

And I would have been more accurate had I called it the Judeo/Christian worldview, as opposed to the Christian worldview.


No, sorry. That would imply that it was a religious dogma to claim such a monopoly on standards, it is certainly not Bibilical. Ergo the ego.
"The universe is full of magical things, waiting for our wits to grow sharper." Eden Philpotts
Clifford the Red
View Profile
Inner circle
LA, California
1933 Posts

Profile of Clifford the Red
Quote:
On 2005-11-19 17:35, Leland Stone wrote:
Hiya, Clifford:

Thanks for weighing in...good to see you outside the Bizarre forum Smile

When we discuss "scientific," we're talking, of course, about the realm of quantity, repeatability, observation, and hypothesis. In that realm, "better" is but a stranger and an alien.

You and I agree about the things you've mentioned as being "better," but that is not a scientific assessment. Nothing specious or esoteric about it -- it's simply not possible to scientifically ascertain what constitutes "better."

Science can tell us that clean air contains fewer particulates, or that it's more efficient at sustaining respiration; science can enable the formulation of synthetic insulin or antibiotics; science can allow us to broadcast television programming to the remotest areas of Earth. Whether any of these advances is "better" can't be answered scientifically, a truth that is easily seen if the question is asked in these more basic terms: Is vanilla ice cream "better" than chocolate cake? Science can't give an answer to value questions.

The same category error occurs when we try to ask science (or some other natural discipline) to answer a question about ethics and morality. You mentioned your view that a belief in God is not a requirement for values and ethics...but this is logically untenable. There is no naturalistic basis for morality, any more than there is a naturalistic standard for which flavour is best. Without a transcendent basis, your "standard" is simply a personal opinion elevated much higher than it can logically support itself.


I will get back to your exercise in Pharasitical reasoning when I have time and patience for it.
"The universe is full of magical things, waiting for our wits to grow sharper." Eden Philpotts
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
[quote]On 2005-11-20 21:40, Chessmann wrote:
Quote:
Ooops, didn't write what it *was*. It would be more accurately called "Theocentrism".


Quote:
No, sorry. That would imply that it was a religious dogma to claim such a monopoly on standards, it is certainly not Bibilical. Ergo the ego.


No, Clifford, you are incorrect. It certainly *is* Biblical. In addition, if the Christian God exists, then it is (and always been) God's standards that are "central" to His own creation, regardless of time or culture. Therefore, His standards, along with the Judeo-Christian worldview, are "Theocentric", and non-Christian cultures that claim moral or ethical standards similar to the Judeo-Christian worldview are "borrowing" the standards of their Creator.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
RevJohn
View Profile
Inner circle
Oregon City Oregon, Oregon
2472 Posts

Profile of RevJohn
Dang... didn't read this thread for a couple of days.

WOW.

RevJohn
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Yes....

I tried a couple of times to get back to your original question, but the temptations were too great, it seems!
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Clifford the Red
View Profile
Inner circle
LA, California
1933 Posts

Profile of Clifford the Red
Quote:
On 2005-11-20 21:43, Chessmann wrote:

No, Clifford, you are incorrect. It certainly *is* Biblical. In addition, if the Christian God exists, then it is (and always been) God's standards that are "central" to His own creation, regardless of time or culture. Therefore, His standards, along with the Judeo-Christian worldview, are "Theocentric", and non-Christian cultures that claim moral or ethical standards similar to the Judeo-Christian worldview are "borrowing" the standards of their Creator.


I love it when people speak for God. But then we are back to Egocentric, aren't we. As far as the Biblical, Christ himself offered a non-Jew, non-Christian example of model behavior in his parable of the Samaritan.

As far as your assertion that any other cultures have "stolen" (let's be honest this is what you are saying) ethics from Christianity as they are incapable of creating an ethical idea for themselves, you must not be fully informed of historical fact such as Ur-Nammu of Sumeria who is credited with promulgating the oldest known code of conduct "principles of equity and truth" around 2169 B.C.. According to the ancient text Ur-Nammu established "equity in the land and banished malediction, violence, and strife." There was also Hammurabi in 1848 B.C. who is credited with creating a famous code of behavior and law. In India there are the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads. In China, there was the Yi-Jing, Shi-Jing, Yi Li, Shu Jing, and the Chun Qiu. In fact, for 3000 years until the 18th century, the written word was so prolific that there were more books in China than anywhere else in the world. After these classics came the Li Ji, Lun Yu, Xun-zi, Mencius. Xiao Jing, Dao De Jing and many others all well before Christ. Greece also had it's own brand of ethical thought . Egypt are 2345 B.C. already had a functioning ethical code attributed to the religion of Osirus. This beautiful inscription from a tomb at the time demonstrates the pre-existence of many tenets you claim a monopoly to:

I have come from my town;
I have descended from my nome;
I have done justice for its lord;
I have satisfied him with what he loves.
I spoke truly; I did right;
I spoke fairly; I repeated fairly;
I seized the right moment,
so as to stand well with people.
I judged between two so as to content them;
I rescued the weak from one stronger than he
as much as was in my power.
I gave bread to the hungry, clothes ...;
I brought the boatless to land.
I buried him who had no son;
I made a boat for him who lacked one.
I respected my father; I pleased my mother;
I raised their children.
So says he whose nickname is Sheshi.
"The universe is full of magical things, waiting for our wits to grow sharper." Eden Philpotts
RevJohn
View Profile
Inner circle
Oregon City Oregon, Oregon
2472 Posts

Profile of RevJohn
Clifford, I agree. All one has to do is read through many different Holy writings of all kinds of faith, religion, Culture and see so many similar "Golden Rules."

Alright... Great conversations. There is so much I agree with and disagree with (and much different than the stereotypes of a Christian would lead one to believe).

However, how does one Lock a thread?

RevJohn
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Clifford, you have missed the point entirely, and are arguing points not in question. Not one time have I said that other cultures didn't have their own ethics and standards. This is something I stated earlier, remember?

It is also simply silly to say that "borrowed" always means "stolen" in what we are discussing, as people do come up with ethical standards who have never heard of Christ - you are simply trying to poison the well.

But I am more than happy to let others read the discussion and form their own opinions - hopefully after doing some research.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
Chessmann
View Profile
Inner circle
3987 Posts

Profile of Chessmann
Quote:
I love it when people speak for God. But then we are back to Egocentric, aren't we. As far as the Biblical, Christ himself offered a non-Jew, non-Christian example of model behavior in his parable of the Samaritan.


Clifford, you do not understand. The Samaritan *is* an example of Christian behavior as it was taught by Christ! Secondly, why do you think Christ was teaching this to the religious leaders? Because it was God's standard for them! They had perverted his standards in many ways.

We are talking about God's standards - not what people have made of them.
My ex-cat was named "Muffin". "Vomit" would be a better name for her. AKA "The Evil Ball of Fur".
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Good News! » » "Preach the Gospel at all times..." » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.22 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL