Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest."
From what I gather, Schroeder is telling us there is much more to those biblical passages. He views the scientific evidence concerning the age of the earth as perfectly valid. Genesis (“6000 years”) cannot be interpreted in a strict literal sense.
This isn’t the "typical" YEC view correct?
To put it another way, I don’t think the folks at ICR and AiG wouldn’t accept Schroeder’s point of view.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way before.
But then again I am not too familiar with catastrophism.
No...I value life because even if there is other life in the Universe, we here on planet Earth are the only family we really have.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---
That should be...would accept...
Now if only every one felt that way. :-)
Now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames.
Now, who says it's wrong to be unmerciful. Who says you're supposed to love your enemies, anyway?
Well, at least Paul felt that we should be gracious to our enemies (Romans 12:20). BTW, the reference to heaping "burning coals on his head" is often mistaken for allowing your enemy to feel guilty or something similar. Actually, the reference implies giving your enemy the means to cook food and keep warm.
Not necessarily It's precisely because we grew up that way that it's difficult to imagine any other perspective. But consider the classical Greeks and Romans, with their pagan gods. Surely they valued their lives. As did people in other traditions before them. I think it's inherent in our being alive that we value our lives, unless we're involved in some kind of death-cult which teaches something contrary. So it's quite understandable to me that an atheist would consider his life as valuable to him as your life is to you. Maybe even more valuable, because of its brevity.
Now that I think about it, a tradition that teaches an eternal afterlife -- one which is vastly better than this life -- sometimes encourages martyrdom. Islam certainly does. The early Christians seemed to be proud of their martyrs. Is it not said that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church"? I'm not aware of any atheist analog to martyrdom, unless it's just plain old going off to war for one's country, which is something that most religious people engage in, and atheists too, but that's not really martyrdom. One might argue that atheism places a higher value on life, because of its absence of the impulse for martyrdom. I haven't thought this through, so consider it a rough draft of an idea.
But let me qualify this a bit: I consider all life to be precious, but there are some people I'd rather were somewhere else.
Understood. Each person's life is precious to him, and we agree that all equally are entitled to their lives; but none of us thinks that everyone is of equal value.
So, Paul said we should love our enemies. Anybody else?
heaping "burning coals on his head" is often mistaken for allowing your enemy to feel guilty or something similar. Actually, the reference implies giving your enemy the means to cook food and keep warm.
I'm not inclined to agree with either interpretation. I think the verse presume you're enemy is in the wrong and that by returning malice with kindness you will either "convict" your enemy, cause a change of heart and make a friend; or return vengence to God's judgement where it belongs.
Regardless you are doing right by being kind.
Well, yes, but they didn't value anybody else's, emotional connections aside.
Sure, think of Lenin's tomb and those deceases heroes of socialism bestowed with praise by the Soviets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.