[Vision2020] To Chew On

[Joe Campbell]

Just for the record, Dick, one can "debate philosophically on a topic
with someone who denies the very premise the debate is predicated upon
without lowering oneself to the level of the swine." Philosophers do so all the time. Berkeley claimed that the notion of a material (as opposed to immaterial) substance was incoherent and he debated this very topic with several folks. They didn't have a problem with him believing that the notion of a material substance was incoherent. They just disagreed with his belief.

Here is a question I have for you, or any other Christian fundamentalist who cares to answer it. Why isn't the suggestion that we interpret the bible literally absurd? Consider Leviticus's condemantion of gay sex, for instance. What Leviticus literally says is man should not lay with man as he does with woman. If we interpret the relevant passage literally, it suggests that if two men sleep in the same bed together both should be put to death. But you don't believe that, do you? Hence, your interpretation is not literal. 

Isn't this enough to suggest that literal interpretation of the Bible (or any text for that matter) is absurd? You can dance all you want around this question by why is your dancing somehow superior to the dancing of other Christians, like myself, who think that whatever it is that Leviticus is talking about it is not gay sex?

--
Joe Campbell

---- rvrcowboy <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net> wrote: 

=============
As I stated earlier, you are not even capable of answering the question
being asked so why would anyone waste time trying to debate it with you?
Aren't you the guy who once said you had no interest in the Bible except for
some poetic value?  Maybe it wasn't you but I thought it was.

The fact you are a humanitarian does not qualify you on the merits of the
question and that you have already explored Christianity and tossed it aside
as not being up to your more modern standards disqualifies you even further.
In fact to continue a debate with you on this topic would be analogous to
casting pearls before swine.  One can not debate philosophically on a topic
with someone who denies the very premise the debate is predicated upon
without lowering oneself to the level of the swine.  Therefore, I am not
going to debate this with you any longer,  You can take that as a win and
put another notch on your ego if you like.  It matters little to me.  It
does puzzle me why you would want to debate a topic you have already denied
being interested in unless it was simply to cause more senseless debate to
placate you own ego.  I am not into that, sorry.  To me that is:
"intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness..." You will have to hone your
ego elsewhere.

Be a man and just agree to disagree on this one.  You don't have the
qualifications for the discussion and I don't have the patience to pursue it
with you senselessly any longer.

Dick
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>
To: "rvrcowboy" <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net>
Cc: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] To Chew On


> On 5/17/06, rvrcowboy <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > And so the man who does not even believe in Christ has given his
response
> > with a feeble attempt to make me feel guilty for my own faith.  You are
> > right, I have little patience for those who only wish to enter a
discussion
> > to cause dissension over faith issues.  If you don't believe, then the
> > original message had nothing to do with you to begin with. You couldn't
> > possible have a clue as to the answer to the original question so why do
you
> > insist on becoming the center of attraction?
>
> I'm a humanitarian.  Whenever I see lonely, starving brain cells, I
> feel overwhelmed by my compunction to follow the Golden Rule and
> provide those brain cells nourishment.  Since you've joined this list,
> Dick, that compunction overwhelms me quite frequently.
>
> Second answer: I hate intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness,
> especially when it is couched in Christian piety.  I was a Christian
> for many years, so I definitely "have a clue as to the answer to the
> original question " and many other aspects of Christian theology.
>
> I'm I the center of your attention, Dick?  Thanks.  I'm flattered.
> Well, not really, but the sentiment is almost nice, while
> simultaneously being a little creepy.
>

_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯