Re: Another query to George and comments to Janice

Sorry I'm so late in my reply - too much going on here.

At 12:02 PM 6/8/2006, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:

>Replying to Janice (1):
>
>I had posted: "Good Christians are to be found on both sides of the
>issue; that fact leads me to hold that none of the arguments are
>"irresistible."
>
>Janice commented: " The criteria that makes a biblical argument
>irresistible is the use of sound hermenutics. Plenty of "good
>Christians" couldn't even define the word let alone engage in them."
>
>Ignoring the last sentence, which is, of course true but off subject,

@ You injected the generalization ("good Christians") into the mix
as if the subjective opinions of biblical illiterates/relativists
should be used as a criteria -- ie: carry equal weight with the
opinions of respected scholars such as those who make up The Context
Group http://www.serv.net/~oakmande/mainindex.htm

The epitome of postmodern thinking is in its rejection of the law of
noncontradiction, e.g. each person's "truth" carries equal weight -
there is no standard.

The quintessential example of postmodern thinking in academia is the
denial that any text has a fixed meaning, or that the intention of
its author can be known.
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=290_0_1_0_C

>I take it that your claim is that those favoring your preferred
>position are, for the most part, "using sound hermeneutics" and all
>those on the other side are not doing so. Perhaps so, I am
>unqualified to say. But I am skeptical of such a claim.

@ You're funny. First you set up the straw man (my claim) then
knock it down. Only illogical/uncritical readers fall for those
sorts of tactics.

You sound like the guy who is being dealt with
here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jsnorestore.html

>There is one attribute I share with my friend, Glenn Morton. I like
>to read stuff from people I don't agree with, who are making claims
>I do not hold. I have done more than my share of this. I still may
>be wrong; I accept that possibility.

@ Those few people who suspect that they may be wrong about
something ... and are more interested in what is right rather than in
being right, will definitely be spending time reading/interacting
with the best in their field of study. For instance:
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2005/10/scholars-to-spend-time-with.html

Lots more in The Apologetics
Arsenal: http://www.tektonics.org/books/arsenal.html

>Replying to Janice (2)
>
>Janice: "The reason why there are so many biblical illiterates is
>because of the fact that the church at large has failed in its
>responsibilities. That's going to change."
>
>I am puzzled. What do you mean by this? I agree (generally) with
>your first sentence but I see no general force for change. In our
>little church in Rico we strive always to rectify this condition;
>but it is a general condition and a big problem.

@ How do you "strive" to do it?

  "... Is the youth ministry getting the youth ready for when they
will go to college and have stuff like The Christ Conspiracy shoved
down their throats? Any word on Bart Ehrman's best-selling book
Misquoting Jesus? If you try to discuss things like Deuteronomy in
terms of an ancient suzerainty treaty (which is very important to
understanding its role and application today), or the argument
stricture of 1 Cor. 14 (key to understanding the "women keep silent"
passage) is there anyone on church staff you can discuss this
intelligently with, or who shows interest, or do their eyes just
glaze over? More: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/indictment.html

>Replying to Janice (3)
>
>Don wrote: "The same sort of argument that Janice makes to justify
>the condemnation of homosexual behavior can and has been made to
>justify anti-Semitism, slavery and the subjugation of women."
>
>I wrote: "Don -- that is true enough, but (speaking as the devil's
>advocate) that does not make them invalid. It is a good argument,
>to be sure, but it does not go far enough.
>
>Janice observed: "The argument used above is illogical, so it's not
>a good argument by a LONG shot.. It's like saying that the best
>way to stop misspelled words is to get rid of pencils, and the best
>way to stop people from being murdered is to get rid of guns."
>
>Here is why I disagree: The argument is not illogical if one starts
>with the assumption that same-sex intimacy may not, in some
>instances, be a sin.
>
>If one starts with the certainty that same-sex intimacy is, in all
>instances, a sin, then I agree, the argument is illogical. It is
>because of this that I wrote to Don as I did.

@ You continue to be funny. You knocked down the strawman you set up
("if the argument is") and are now attempting to justify doing it.

Forget your strawman, because it wasn't "the argument".

THIS simple exegetical question, "What relevance does Romans 1:27-8,
1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10 have to homosexuality?" was "the
argument". Romans 1:27, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Homosexuality
James Patrick Holding http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html

So let's not bring up these sorts of ILLOGICAL, non sequitur
arguments again, OK?:

Certain Scriptures are bad and should not be used. Why? Because
"some" people with an agenda have used them to justify [fill in the blank].
Writing implements are bad and should not be used. Why? Because
"some" people have used them to misspell words, and worse.
Guns are bad and should not be
used. Why? Because "some" people have used them
to murder other people.

>Reply to Janice (4)
>
>I wrote: 'Janice -- I understand and respect your position (while,
>of course, disagreeing with it). It is held by many good Christians.
>I just happen to believe that the arguments are not conclusive
>enough to convict."
>
>Janice asked: "Convict"? Of what?"
>
>I was thinking of the tendency in all of us to convict others of sin
>when we are innocent of that particular sin and to overlook our own
>failings. Specifically, the action of calling all same-sex activity
>"sin." If all Christians were united on this one, it might be
>different. That is not the case.

@ There are many "professing" Christians in the visible
church. And there are many spiritually immature Christians in the
invisible church (Christ's Bride). The more spiritually immature a
person is, the less he will understand the depth of his own
depravity, and be more inclined to point fingers at the sins of
others. We will always have the emotionally and spiritually
immature among us, and the goats among the sheep - so the
finger-pointing will always go on. Wishing it wasn't the case, and
trying to get rid of the parts of the
Bible that some people quote for the purpose of hurting others, is a
waste of time. Relax. Christ is in charge of His Bride.

>Reply to Janice (5)
>
>Janice: "You may have missed it, but the only thing I was addressing
>was your claim that Paul didn't address the subject
>of homosexuality - (forget the tap dance about the word- it's transparent).
>
>No, that was clear. But Paul could hardly have addressed
>"homosexuality," any more than he could have addressed quantum mechanics.

@ A technicality. The, "it all depends on what the meaning of is,
is", tap dance is transparent. Give it up. It won't fly.

>Janice: "Dr John Warwick Montgomery would not accept your personal
>opinion on the subject as carrying any weight because you haven't
>backed it up with sound hermeneutics. I can't either - for the same reason."
>
>My personal opinion is not really relevant here, and the last thing
>I would urge anyone to do is accept it just on my say so. Nor do I
>intend "sound hermeneutics" for my training has allowed me to avoid
>such subjects in the past; at age 74+ I am not likely to become
>another George Murphy, who seems to have that discipline well under
>control. <G>
>
>In any case, my original post was calling for precision in language,
>nothing more. The word "homosexuality," in scholarly discourse at
>least, refers to a condition, not an action. To use it as referring
>to an action blurs the conversation and disrespects the other side.
>This is not a "tap dance."

@ Not a tap dance, huh? :)

>Question to Janice.
>Now I have a question -- our librarian here has acquired a number of
>"Bush Bashing" volumes in the past year (many by donations). She
>asked me to find some "responsible" books on the other side --
>recent ones (2004 and later). So far I have come up with nothing
>that pleases her (Ann Coulter and Shawn Hannity books don't really
>qualify). Perhaps you (or anyone) can recommend a couple of books of
>this nature. This is a serious request; almost certainly I will read
>(and possibly review) any such book she acquires. Thanks. Burgy

@ "Responsible" books, huh? Now that's a riot. And who gets to
define what "is" means in this situation? Hilarious!!

Let's put it this way - there is NO book that I would recommend that
would get past your gate-keeper. This "ominpotent busybody" gets to
determine what is and what isn't worthy reading for other adults.

This is how my friends and I get past these arrogant elites and get
our books into the local libraries. Our library cards allow us to
requests books and if the "local" library doesn't have it, they must
get it for us using their inter-library resource. Now, Burgy, all
you have to do is request the book for yourself and you will be
notified when it arrives at the library. After you read and return
it, it will remain in the library for others to read. Unless the
gate-keeper hides it.

Now that you know how to do it, you may order these books from your
library and I'll look forward to your book review(s).

Slander : Liberal Lies About the American Right

Treason : Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)

Loathing on the Left : The Liberal Compulsion to Hate Conservatives

Godless: The Church of Liberalism

You could also order the one by Bill Sammon: Strategery: How George
W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and
Confounding the Mainstream Media

Here's a little snippet from my favorite lesbian's web page:

"...I've work in that field for over 20 years, and believe it or not
it is very dominated by extreme and aggressive leftists, especially
in one of the main professional organizations, the American Library
Association, which frequently promotes left-wing causes within AND
outside the library profession. That group often screams and whines
about "censorship," but usually for left-wing causes, and they like
to promote people like the Clintons. I'll never forget a disgusting
anti-Reagan tirade by Julian Bond at one of the professional
meetings. Sadly that kind of thing has been common. And the ALA also
promote friendly relations with dictatorships such as Cuba who truly
are oppressive and stifle free speech.

When I was in library school in the mid-to-late '80s, I was a lot
more liberal than I am now, but I was even then surprised and
disappointed by the left-wing bias of so many professors, librarians
and library school students. Some librarians are liberal yet are good
at making available library materials from various points of view,
but not all of them are so fair-minded. I've met some fellow
conservatives in the library field, but they're often in a small
minority in their institutions. ..."
http://tammybruce.com/2006/04/rank_leftist_fascism_at_ohio_s.php

~ Janice
Received on Fri Jun 9 11:59:05 2006