In Reply to: Re: Anthropocentricism posted by Thinker on December 18, 2009 at 07:33:53:
Do you believe the story of Genesis, that man* is a whole separate category of creation from the rest of nature? Pastor Don does, if I read correctly.
Skep> Not really. That is not my interpretation of the reading.
Do you believe that the earth was created for man? Or that man was the final, crowning creation?
Skep> God's creation was created for the whole creation, not just for man. About man being the final and crowing creation of God, all of God's creation play a complementing role to each other. Some people think they are the "ultimate, best and impossible to improve versions" but they are fools.
Skep> I have questions about evolution but I recognize that it is a possible but not the unique explanation of so-called intermediate species.
Do you agree with Farmer that "God made His creation for us?"
Skep> Yes, but also that He created us for His creation because we are of equal value.
Do you believe we were made in the image of God?
Skep> I never really liked the wording “image of God” because there is a commandment against making images of God. But I do believe that God's creation is in His image. All of God's creation, and not just man (and woman).
Do you believe there was a garden of Eden made just for man?
Skep> No. When God said something to the effect of “it is not good for man to be alone”, I believe its meaning refers to the whole human specie, of which there was only one representative, Adam. Many people believed until fairly recently that black people were not humans. The "Garden of Eden" is an allegory about life in communion with God, in the spirit, and the results to which personal choice can lead to spiritual unlinking from God.
Do you believe in Gen. 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth?" Do you believe that commandment is still valid today?
Skep> I do have problems with this but I believe that man had something special in the sense of benevolent presence and protection, which entails responsibility.
Do you believe in Noah's Ark, that mankind actually saved nature and all the (land) animal species in the world today stemmed from here?
Skep> Sort of. I believe it is a myth that encapsulates some lost truth that did not fully transcend time.
Do you believe that Jesus came in the flesh for the sake of the salvation of mankind?
Skep> Most definitely yes but I don’t think the real meaning of salvation is what christian churches teach for the most part. I believe it is a gift (or talent, if you will) and the result of personal discovery.
Do you interpret Revelations to mean that the ultimate existence and purpose of this planet, and even its outcome serves or depends on man's interests?
Skep> I believe the book of Revelations is a prophetic book but, again, its meaning is not necessarily what has been popularized by profiteers for the gain of ideological gain.
Do you acknowledge that Chrsitianity gave rise to the belief of the earth being the center of the universe? That any deviations from humanocentricism have been attacked by the church--Copernicus' heliocentric teachings for example?
Skep> Yes, and this makes a good example of deviations from the truth due to erroneous interpretations. The truth is “out there” and not only one interpretation exists. The truth is often defined by discussion or by consensus but there may be other explanations. Cosmological understandings are excellent examples of how the truth about earth and space has evolved. Tools and instruments have been essential in changing how we understand phenomena. The origin of knowledge has been changing from being mandated by the church to being mandated by science. Both require a degree of faith and one must choose the source of faith. My source if God, with lots of verification in the things that matter to me.
Do you believe in a spiritual hierarchy--that we have been endowed with "free will," which the rest of nature and even the angels might not have?
Skep> No. I leave my knowledge of spiritual things alone and bound within my own experience on those. I don’t know God’s organizational structure and think very little of those who claim to understand it.
Do you agree the Bible teaches a type of hierarchy as in:
1) God
2) man
3) all nature and creation, plants, minerals, etc
Skep> No, but I believe that all in God’s creation have a place in God’s creation. There is order but not necessarily hierarchical with man on top. I think there is an order we don’t completely understand, even though we can all be exposed to parts of it. They may even apparently contradicting one to another at times.
Do you acknowledge that certain pagan religions and aboriginal beliefs are more at one with nature than Christianity (that the above hierarchy is less pronounced or not even taught at all)?
Yes.
Do you acknowledge that Christianity gave rise to the belief that animals cannot experience commonality both in physical body and emotional states?
Skep> Some theologians developed doctrines to obtain or maintain power over people. Christianity was, or even has been, much as any other ideology, the opiate of the people because of the oppressive power any ideologies can have. This is the same thing that happens with many teachings in The Family. They call itself a christian group, quote the Bible and even have Bible-based teachings but yet are not Christians. Your example is a type of doctrine that came from similar people in the prevalent Christian church of the time.
If you answered yes to any of the above, then as I understand it, you agree that Christianity teaches a form of anthropocentrism.
While I do acknowledge your point that blanket statements about Christian anthropocentric tenets arise from the study of the behavior of "Christianized" peoples rather than what the Bible "really" teaches, and that there is a disparity between behavior and the "Biblical truth," nevertheless, the behavior/attitudes of practicing and professed Christians in general, nominal or otherwise, forms the basis for such statements, and are therefore justified. And I personally acknowledge that much of my Christian beliefs are in fact anthropocentric. I see anthropcentricism as a big part of human nature, perhaps even inescapable part of human life; that it is subscribed to by many--not just Christians. I acknowledge that Christianity, along with most montheistic religions, encourages and builds on the theme.
Skep> As I explained in another post, commenting Farmer’s and OT2’s posts, my comments to the article were with respect to Christianity as it should be and is recognized by many. The article itself, and later your posts, refer to Christianity as it is practiced. The underlying fact is that there is a huge difference between real Christianity and the way it is practiced.
Skep> In my comments, I addressed my personal opinion about the origin of the discrepancy. It appears after the initial period of reformation. Evangelism existed, of course. Particularly in the USA, it had strong anti-catholic sentiments, but strong activism didn’t appear until later on with worldwide mobility as the new empire expanded. The USA became the main source of ideological evangelism masked as christianity. The values of worldwide christianity are very similar to the values in the USA because of their successful export over the last 100 or 200 years.
Skep> The Family is just another form, a more modern evolution of the previous ones.
Skep> Having said this, I agree with your view that “anthropocentricism as a big part of human nature, perhaps even inescapable part of human life; that it is subscribed to by many--not just Christians.” But I don’t agree with your attribute that to “Christianity ... encourages and builds on the theme.”
Again, I see real Christianity as very different from the prevalent practice people calls christianity.
Skep> I identify with OT2 and Farmer’s posts on the issue, and not with the article in your post but I suspect we agree on some of the issues. We seem to differ because we are talking about two different things. The article you posted talked about how people play the game. I am talking about how the game should be played according to the rule book. Not all that play the game know the rule book but some people do know it, and still play it according to the rules. Those who don't play according to the rules are many, and as a result create many secondary effects.
Skep> The article talked about the effects and we agree on those. They are bad. But we don't agree in the premise that those who corretcly follow the rule book are to blame. Further, I believe that the rule book has been perverted by those with different and unrelated agendas that are being promoted and results in the behavior that creates those bad secondary effects.