[asa] Fw: Reply to Janice (1), (2), (3)

(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.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. 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.

Me again: "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."

Janice: "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."

Me again: Yes, I am often funny. In this case I inferred from your posts
what your claim was. I assume from your answer that such is not your
claim. Fine.

I have studied under and interacted with postmodernists. I do not share
their views; none the less I do not agree with your characterization of
them.

When I wrote that "good Christians" appear to not all agree on the issue,
I was thinking of many I have read (on both sides). I have no reason to
believe that any of them are "biblical illiterates," indeed, just the
opposite.

Sally Geis and Donald Messer published a point-counterpoint book a few
years back. I recommend it. I also recommend the book just out by Jack
Rogers.

(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."
>
Me: >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.

Janice: How do you "strive" to do it?

 Me: I'll be happy to answer your question if you answer mine. When you
write "That's going to change," you must have had something in mind that
was going to cause that change. Since I see no credible cause on the
horizon, I would like to be informed.

(3)

Previous posts:
>
>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.
--------------------
Janice then wrote "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"."

Me again. Yep, I'm still funny. But you appear (to me) to be inscrutable.
 It is difficult to dialog with you because I simply don't understand
what you mean.

Janice again: "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"

Me again: OK, I understand that. Two points. (1) As far as I can
understand, those passages have NO relevance to homosexuality, for the
word "homosexuality" refers to a condition, and not to an action. (2)
Holding plows old ground, better covered years ago by Thomas Schmidt. It
is a respectable position to take; I do not fault Holding for holding
(sic) it. However, it is hardly an "irresistible" argument; there are
Christian scholars who think differently. Jack Rogers, for example.

I realize you call my point 1 above a "tap dance." But it is not possible
to discuss any issue intelligently unless both sides agree on the meaning
of words. When the word "homosexuality" is used to describe action, as is
often done by people who don't know any better, it leads to unnecessary
confusion among those who (properly, IMHO) use it to refer to a
condition.

Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 19 10:02:34 2006