Re: Christianity and Sexual Assault

On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>

> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But

> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into

> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than

> > > for your whole body to go into hell.

> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

people up.

Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of

union with God stealthily.

This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

they can focus their full attention on God.

Baldin Lee Pramer

"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1176569300.964583.167280@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>>

>> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But

>> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

>> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

>> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

>> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into

>> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

>> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body

>> > > than

>> > > for your whole body to go into hell.

>

>> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

>> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

>

> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

> people up.

Surely you're not saying the bible isn't the word of god and should be

ignored, are you?

> Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of

> union with God stealthily.

Unless you somehow know exactly what the Jesus character meant when he said

the things he is said to have said, your view has equal footing with the

literalists.

Can you demonstrate to an objective observer that you're right and the

literalists are wrong?

> This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

> from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

> with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

> dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

> necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

> they can focus their full attention on God.

Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.

--

Denis Loubet

dloubet@io.com

http://www.io.com/~dloubet

http://www.ashenempires.com

On 14 apr, 18:48, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>

> > > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But

> > > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

> > > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

> > > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

> > > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into

> > > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

> > > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than

> > > > for your whole body to go into hell.

> > Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

> > Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

>

> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

> people up.

>

> Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of

> union with God stealthily.

>

> This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

> from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

> with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

> dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

> necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

> they can focus their full attention on God.

>

> Baldin Lee Pramer

My wife is of a different opinion

"If you look Poo-ying (girl/woman), I boxing you".

The most obvious thing I deduct from this quote,

is that appearantly Jesus didn't think looking at another mans wife

was the subject of the last commandment.

In the same way he put name-calling under "thou shallt no kill"

he put a stare at a pretty woman unver "adultery"

Focussing one's full attention on God,

according to Jesus, was equal to loveing you fellow man.

("the second commandmet equal to it")

Peter van Velzen Daengprasert

Atheist#1107

Amstelveen

The Netherlands

On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>

> > > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But

> > > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

> > > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

> > > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

> > > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into

> > > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

> > > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than

> > > > for your whole body to go into hell.

> > Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

> > Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

>

> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

> people up.

>

> Jesus spoke in parables

No, he didn't.

On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

<use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> > Jesus spoke in parables

>

> No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

BLP

On Apr 14, 11:30 am, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1176569300.964583.167280@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> >> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>

> >> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But

> >> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

> >> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

> >> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

> >> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into

> >> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

> >> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body

> >> > > than

> >> > > for your whole body to go into hell.

>

> >> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

> >> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

>

> > It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

> > interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

> > literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

> > insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

> > people up.

>

> Surely you're not saying the bible isn't the word of god and should be

> ignored, are you?

>

> > Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of

> > union with God stealthily.

>

> Unless you somehow know exactly what the Jesus character meant when he said

> the things he is said to have said, your view has equal footing with the

> literalists.

>

> Can you demonstrate to an objective observer that you're right and the

> literalists are wrong?

>

> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

> > they can focus their full attention on God.

>

> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.

Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither

can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a

plausibility argument, indicating that the most sensible way to

interpret Jesus' words is the one I gave. Would that be acceptable?

IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly and

without prejudice if I were to go to the trouble to lay it out?

Baldin Lee Pramer

On Apr 14, 7:06 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

>

> <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

> > On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> > > Jesus spoke in parables

>

> > No, he didn't.

>

> Yes, he did.

>

> BLP

No. Jesus didn't speak at all.

On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

>mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither

>can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

>biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a

>plausibility argument

Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with

everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible. (And

I've yet to see anyone claiming that his own interpretation is

implausible).

>IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there

isn't any), b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

an act isn't the same as thinking about that act) and c) that

stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

On 14 Apr 2007 11:06:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

><use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

>> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

>

>> > Jesus spoke in parables

>>

>> No, he didn't.

>

>

>Yes, he did.

A fictional character did, or didn't, speak any way you want to claim

he did - depending on your viewpoint of whether a fictional character

actually speaks.

On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither

> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a

> >plausibility argument

>

> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with

> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.

I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the

commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different

religions. That is a completely different approach than that taken by

the literalists.

> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

>

> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there

> isn't any),

I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.

There is mention of him in the Bible, which is an historical record of

sorts, and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that

didn't make it into the official Bible. It seems perfectly reasonable

that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth. It seems

more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a

real historical figure.

>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

Why does my interpretation not make sense?

> and c) that

> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

It certainly is. It exists and is applied every day. In any case, my

argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern

evangelicals is wrong.

Baldin Lee Pramer

On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2007 11:06:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

> ><use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

> >> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

>

> >> > Jesus spoke in parables

>

> >> No, he didn't.

>

> >Yes, he did.

>

> A fictional character did, or didn't, speak any way you want to claim

> he did - depending on your viewpoint of whether a fictional character

> actually speaks.

Why do you claim he is a fictional character? Do you believe the Jesus

of the Bible was not based on a real person? If so, why does this make

more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a

real person?

Baldin Lee Pramer

"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1176574431.702675.203880@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 14, 11:30 am, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

>> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in

>> messagenews:1176569300.964583.167280@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

>>

>>

>>

>> > On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>

>> >> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>>

>> >> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28

>> >> > > But

>> >> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

>> >> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye

>> >> > > causes

>> >> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you

>> >> > > to

>> >> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown

>> >> > > into

>> >> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

>> >> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body

>> >> > > than

>> >> > > for your whole body to go into hell.

>>

>> >> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

>> >> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

>>

>> > It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

>> > interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

>> > literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

>> > insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

>> > people up.

>>

>> Surely you're not saying the bible isn't the word of god and should be

>> ignored, are you?

>>

>> > Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of

>> > union with God stealthily.

>>

>> Unless you somehow know exactly what the Jesus character meant when he

>> said

>> the things he is said to have said, your view has equal footing with the

>> literalists.

>>

>> Can you demonstrate to an objective observer that you're right and the

>> literalists are wrong?

>>

>> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

>> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

>> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

>> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

>> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

>> > they can focus their full attention on God.

>>

>> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.

>

> Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

> mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done.

So all you can do pull the meaning straight out of your ass?

What makes your arbitrary guess any more authoritative than anyone else's

arbitrary guess?

> Neither

> can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

> biology with this level of rigor.

But they're not pulling their conclusions straight out of their asses like

you are. They can appeal to actual evidence, and honestly claim that their

theories are the best explanation currently available given the evidence.

That's the best science claims to do, and I'm satisfied with that.

But you can't appeal to any evidence. All you can do is make-up what you

think Jesus meant.

And if, perhaps, you agree with all the teachings of the Jesus character,

ask yourself if that's just a coincidence.

> What I can do is offer a

> plausibility argument, indicating that the most sensible way to

> interpret Jesus' words is the one I gave. Would that be acceptable?

No. An argument alone is not suffient, since anyone can make-up a competeing

argument that is just as valid as yours.

The only thing that separates the arbitrary guess from the best explanation

given the evidence is evidence. Without it, there's no way to distinguish

nonsense from sense.

> IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly and

> without prejudice if I were to go to the trouble to lay it out?

Would you be willing to discuss the interpretation honestly and without

prejudice if a literalist were to lay out their arguments?

Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist

interpretation? Or anyone else's interpretation?

If not, then you're wasteing everyone's time.

--

Denis Loubet

dloubet@io.com

http://www.io.com/~dloubet

http://www.ashenempires.com

"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>>

>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

>> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

>> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither

>> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

>> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a

>> >plausibility argument

>>

>> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with

>> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.

>

> I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the

> commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different

> religions. That is a completely different approach than that taken by

> the literalists.

And there's plenty of scholars that are forced to the conclusion that no

Jesus ever existed, and they appeal to evidence and cultural history of

religion too.

>> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

>>

>> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there

>> isn't any),

>

> I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.

> There is mention of him in the Bible, which is an historical record of

> sorts, and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that

> didn't make it into the official Bible.

There's mention of thousands of other god in other sacred writings, that are

"Historical records of sorts". Do you credit them with the same authority?

> It seems perfectly reasonable

> that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth. It seems

> more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a

> real historical figure.

Are you willing to make the same claim concerning Thor, or Zeus, or Ra?

If not, then we can conclude your use of the term "reasonable", means

"biased".

>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>

> Why does my interpretation not make sense?

I can't comment, I don't know what he means.

>> and c) that

>> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

>

> It certainly is. It exists and is applied every day.

It is not desirable.

> In any case, my

> argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern

> evangelicals is wrong.

Why? It was a barbarous time. It appears to fit perfectly.

I suspect you simply don't like the barbarous interpretation.

--

Denis Loubet

dloubet@io.com

http://www.io.com/~dloubet

http://www.ashenempires.com

On Apr 14, 11:32 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in

> > I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the

> > commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different

> > religions. That is a completely different approach than that taken by

> > the literalists.

>

> And there's plenty of scholars that are forced to the conclusion that no

> Jesus ever existed, and they appeal to evidence and cultural history of

> religion too.

Really? I don't think you are being honest. Can you name any?

> >> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

>

> >> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there

> >> isn't any),

>

> > I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.

> > There is mention of him in the Bible, which is an historical record of

> > sorts, and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that

> > didn't make it into the official Bible.

>

> There's mention of thousands of other god in other sacred writings, that are

> "Historical records of sorts". Do you credit them with the same authority?

The Jesus in the Bible is a man who is credited with miracles, not a

god in the same sense as Greek or Norse gods, for instance.

> > It seems perfectly reasonable

> > that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth. It seems

> > more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a

> > real historical figure.

>

> Are you willing to make the same claim concerning Thor, or Zeus, or Ra?

Of course not. They appear in a completely different context. Jesus,

Buddha, Mohammed and other historical figures appear in a different

context than Thor, Zeus and Ra.

> If not, then we can conclude your use of the term "reasonable", means

> "biased".

No, that conclusion would be based on a misunderstanding of the

different contexts in which the gods you mentioned and the people I

mentioned appear.

Baldin Lee Pramer

On Apr 14, 11:03 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in

> >> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

> >> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

> >> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

> >> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

> >> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

> >> > they can focus their full attention on God.

>

> >> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.

>

> > Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

> > mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done.

>

> So all you can do pull the meaning straight out of your ass?

Of course not. I understand perfectly well that there are different

levels of proof and that different types of assertions must be

demonstrated by different means. You are just being insulting.

> What makes your arbitrary guess any more authoritative than anyone else's

> arbitrary guess?

It is not an arbitrary guess. It is an interpretation informed by an

understanding of the history of many religions and the psychology of

religious experience.

> > Neither

> > can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

> > biology with this level of rigor.

>

> But they're not pulling their conclusions straight out of their asses like

> you are.

Again with the insults. Why do you assume I am just making it up with

no evidence?

> They can appeal to actual evidence, and honestly claim that their

> theories are the best explanation currently available given the evidence.

> That's the best science claims to do, and I'm satisfied with that.

>

> But you can't appeal to any evidence. All you can do is make-up what you

> think Jesus meant.

Again, an assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up. You

know nothing about the historical evidence that went into my claim.

> And if, perhaps, you agree with all the teachings of the Jesus character,

> ask yourself if that's just a coincidence.

I suspect you think I am some sort of religious nut. Sorry, but I am

quite rational. You, however, have made several unwarranted

assumptions.

> > What I can do is offer a

> > plausibility argument, indicating that the most sensible way to

> > interpret Jesus' words is the one I gave. Would that be acceptable?

>

> No. An argument alone is not suffient, since anyone can make-up a competeing

> argument that is just as valid as yours.

Of course they cannot. All arguments are not created equal.

> The only thing that separates the arbitrary guess from the best explanation

> given the evidence is evidence. Without it, there's no way to distinguish

> nonsense from sense.

You have indicated that you are not interested in any evidence. I

offered to make a plausible argument, and you claimed it would be

insufficient.

> > IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly and

> > without prejudice if I were to go to the trouble to lay it out?

>

> Would you be willing to discuss the interpretation honestly and without

> prejudice if a literalist were to lay out their arguments?

Sure. I have done so many times.

> Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist

> interpretation?

Yes, of course. A literalist begins with the assumption that the Bible

is the revealed word of God.

> Or anyone else's interpretation?

It depends on who is making the argument.

Baldin Lee Pramer

On Apr 14, 11:48 am, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>

> > > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32

>

> > > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But

> > > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already

> > > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes

> > > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to

> > > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into

> > > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and

> > > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than

> > > > for your whole body to go into hell.

> > Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New

> > Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

>

> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist

> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the

> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the

> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws

> people up.

>

> Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of

> union with God stealthily.

>

> This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

> from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

> with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

> dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

> necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

> they can focus their full attention on God.

>

> Baldin Lee Pramer

Splendid interpretation, Mr. Pramer. You do indeed have more depth

than the average scientist.

On 14 Apr 2007 20:33:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>>

>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

>> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

>> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither

>> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

>> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a

>> >plausibility argument

>>

>> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with

>> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.

>

>I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the

>commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different

>religions.

So does everyone else. They just interpret the "facts" differently

than you do. That's what's wrong with interpretation - anyone can

interpret anything to mean anything. Try just reading the words.

> That is a completely different approach than that taken by

>the literalists.

It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the

same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

>> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

>>

>> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there

>> isn't any),

>

>I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.

There's no actual evidence. There's interpretation, there's

supposition, there's make-believe, but there's no actual evidence.

Using the fact that there were people who called themselves the

anointed ones" (Chreestos) as proof that Jesus really existed is your

interpretation, it's not evidence.

>There is mention of him in the Bible

The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible. If a book

were self-evidentiary, there would be proof that Superman actually

exists.

> which is an historical record of sorts

Only for very inaccurate values of "sorts". For instance, it claims

(due to a mistranslation) that Jesus was born in a place that didn't

exist at the time he was born. It also claims that Rome required that

people return to their place of birth for a census, when we know that

Rome required that they return to their place of residence. The Bible

may be a historical record, but it's a totally unreliable record,

contradicted by all sorts of real evidence.

> and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that

>didn't make it into the official Bible.

Those would be evidence. Quote them. Be sure to quote documents of

equal veracity that contradict the Bible, though, if you want to be

considered scholarly, not merely trying to prove your point by

dishonesty.

> It seems perfectly reasonable

>that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth.

Since Nazareth didn't exist at the time (the land now called Nazareth

was a cemetery at the time, and Jews wouldn't live NEAR a cemetery,

let alone in one, which you'd know if you knew " the cultural history

of" the area at the time), that's not only unlikely, it's impossible.

"Jesus the Nazorite" (mistranslated into Jesus the Nazarene) has

nothing to do with a place called Nazareth, which was created merely

because the mistranslation of the Bible claimed that Jesus came from

there. There's not a single contemporaneous mention of Nazareth, even

in passing.

> It seems more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a

>real historical figure.

The Jesus of the Bible - Paul's Jesus - wasn't a man, "he" was one of

the aspects of God. The corporeal Jesus is a fiction of the late

second century, so your "unlikely" is unlikely.

>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>Why does my interpretation not make sense?

Because my thinking of killing you isn't murder. If it were, most

people would be serving life sentences right now, in addition to

serving concurrent sentences for hundreds of other felonies and

misdemeanors. We all have thoughts, all through our lives, of doing

things that, were we to actually do them, would land us in prison.

The thought, contrary to the Bible, is NOT the act.

>> and c) that

>> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

>It certainly is.

Stoning recalcitrant children is applicable today? Forcing a rape

victim to spend the rest of her life with her rapist is applicable

today? Forcing the pre-pubescent daughters of our vanquished enemies

into prostitution is applicable today? (There are thousands of other

examples from the Bible.)

Or are just those parts that you like applicable today?

> It exists and is applied every day.

Sorry, no. Rape is illegal and the rapist goes to prison, whether the

victim was a virgin or a prostitute. Stoning your child is murder.

Forcing a slave to obey his master is a felony. MOST Biblical law is

NOT applied today.

>In any case, my argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern

>evangelicals is wrong.

Interpretation is wrong. Reading the words just as they're written is

right - except that it shows what a barbaric, immoral document the

Bible is, so people like you have to "interpret" (read "make up")

things that make it look better than it is. We no longer turn our

vanquished enemies' pre-pubescent daughters into concubines (Numbers

31:18). Even many Christians claim that Biblical law no longer

applies (Numbers 5). And what Christian even makes a pretense of

obeying Levitical Law, which shall be the law, unchanged by even a

punctuation mark, as long as Heaven and Earth exist, according to the

Bible?

Unless, of course, the Bible is not to be taken literally, and we just

accept those parts we like - in which case most of Christianity goes

out the window.

You can't have it both ways, unless you're a Salad Bar Christian.

Which is saying that you make it up as you go, but claim that it's "in

the Bible" - making you a devout Hypocrite, not a Christian.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:32:40 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>

wrote:

>"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message

>news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

>>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>> Why does my interpretation not make sense?

>I can't comment, I don't know what he means.

His claim that the Bible says that the thought is equivalent to the

act. It doesn't make sense, since the thought isn't equivalent to the

act.

On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:06:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>>

>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

>> >On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"

>> ><use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

>> >> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

>>

>> >> > Jesus spoke in parables

>>

>> >> No, he didn't.

>>

>> >Yes, he did.

>>

>> A fictional character did, or didn't, speak any way you want to claim

>> he did - depending on your viewpoint of whether a fictional character

>> actually speaks.

>

>

>Why do you claim he is a fictional character?

Because there's no evidence that such a person actually existed.

> Do you believe the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a real person?

Of course not. He was written about more than 100 years after he

supposedly died. Since the populace was, for the most part,

illiterate, you're talking about 4 generations of storytelling.

> If so, why does this make

>more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a

>real person?

Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually

existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,

didn't, and couldn't, have existed.

There's more actual evidence that the Biblical stories are false than

that they're true, and this is true of the ENTIRE Bible.

Why does it make more sense to you that a book that has MANY passages

that are PROVEABLY false (most of the controversial parts, in fact) is

telling the truth? (Other than the fact that you want it to be true?)

If it were the word of the creator of the universe, why does it have

to be interpreted by mere men? Couldn't such a being have written

books that would always be true? After all, he DOES (according to the

Bible) exist at all times, and knows everything that will ever happen.

Some god, who couldn't even make sure that the words put down as "his"

would be true even a mere 2,000 years later.

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message

news:l36523lmiqndr7doquqec8r74av1cpahlt@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:32:40 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>

> wrote:

>

>>"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message

>>news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>>> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

>>>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

>>>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>

>>> Why does my interpretation not make sense?

>

>>I can't comment, I don't know what he means.

>

> His claim that the Bible says that the thought is equivalent to the

> act. It doesn't make sense, since the thought isn't equivalent to the

> act.

Good point. Is that part of his interpretation?

--

Denis Loubet

dloubet@io.com

http://www.io.com/~dloubet

http://www.ashenempires.com

On Apr 15, 3:25 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2007 20:33:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

>

>

> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>

> >> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> >> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

> >> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither

> >> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or

> >> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a

> >> >plausibility argument

>

> >> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with

> >> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.

>

> >I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the

> >commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different

> >religions.

>

> So does everyone else.

Of course they dont. Many have no idea of the context at all, many

know nothing of other religious tradition, etc.

> They just interpret the "facts" differently

> than you do. That's what's wrong with interpretation - anyone can

> interpret anything to mean anything. Try just reading the words.

The words are different in each translation, and there are many books

and sources that have been left out. It is not as simple as you make

it out.

> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by

> >the literalists.

>

> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the

> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

You are wrong. I made no such assumption.

> >> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

>

> >> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there

> >> isn't any),

>

> >I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.

>

> There's no actual evidence. There's interpretation, there's

> supposition, there's make-believe, but there's no actual evidence.

> Using the fact that there were people who called themselves the

> anointed ones" (Chreestos) as proof that Jesus really existed is your

> interpretation, it's not evidence.

There are many writings about a man called Jesus of Nazareth. It is,

in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that name

existed and all the mythology grew up around him than to assume that

he never existed.

> >There is mention of him in the Bible

>

> The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible.

I am making no such claim. I am using the mention of a charismatic man

in many sources, many of which ended up in the compilation known as

the Bible, to argue for the probable existence of a real man around

whom the myths grew.

> > which is an historical record of sorts

>

> Only for very inaccurate values of "sorts". For instance, it claims

> (due to a mistranslation) that Jesus was born in a place that didn't

> exist at the time he was born. It also claims that Rome required that

> people return to their place of birth for a census, when we know that

> Rome required that they return to their place of residence. The Bible

> may be a historical record, but it's a totally unreliable record,

> contradicted by all sorts of real evidence.

Iagree that many of the details are probably wrong.

> > and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that

> >didn't make it into the official Bible.

>

> Those would be evidence.

Yes, they would, and they carry roughly the same weight as the books

that made it into the Bible.

> Quote them. Be sure to quote documents of

> equal veracity that contradict the Bible, though, if you want to be

> considered scholarly, not merely trying to prove your point by

> dishonesty.

There are many gnostic gospels that mention Jesus. I am sure you are

also familiar with them. They all contradict one another to certain

degrees -- in fact, there are chapters in Genesis that contradict one

another in matters that some fundamentalists would claim are of

fundamental importance. We have many documents in and out of the Bible

that mention Jesus, but what we don't have is any document claiming

that the early Christians just made him up out of whole cloth.

> > It seems perfectly reasonable

> >that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth.

>

> Since Nazareth didn't exist at the time (the land now called Nazareth

> was a cemetery at the time, and Jews wouldn't live NEAR a cemetery,

> let alone in one, which you'd know if you knew " the cultural history

> of" the area at the time), that's not only unlikely, it's impossible.

> "Jesus the Nazorite" (mistranslated into Jesus the Nazarene) has

> nothing to do with a place called Nazareth, which was created merely

> because the mistranslation of the Bible claimed that Jesus came from

> there. There's not a single contemporaneous mention of Nazareth, even

> in passing.

I'm glad you are interested in scholarship. There are many

mistranslations. It does not matter whether they got a name or two

wrong. The particulars are not so important as the fact that they

mention an interesting and charismatic man.

> > It seems more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a

> >real historical figure.

>

> The Jesus of the Bible - Paul's Jesus - wasn't a man, "he" was one of

> the aspects of God. The corporeal Jesus is a fiction of the late

> second century, so your "unlikely" is unlikely.

I disagree. The corporeal Jesus is the one with which the disciples

(more like groupies) interacted.

> >>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -

> >> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

> >Why does my interpretation not make sense?

>

> Because my thinking of killing you isn't murder. If it were, most

> people would be serving life sentences right now, in addition to

> serving concurrent sentences for hundreds of other felonies and

> misdemeanors. We all have thoughts, all through our lives, of doing

> things that, were we to actually do them, would land us in prison.

>

> The thought, contrary to the Bible, is NOT the act.

Sorry, but I don't understand your explanation.

> >> and c) that

> >> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

> >It certainly is.

>

> Stoning recalcitrant children is applicable today? Forcing a rape

> victim to spend the rest of her life with her rapist is applicable

> today? Forcing the pre-pubescent daughters of our vanquished enemies

> into prostitution is applicable today? (There are thousands of other

> examples from the Bible.)

It certainly is, as evidenced by the fact that people still do these

kinds of things. You may not like it, but that is how it is done in

many places.

> Or are just those parts that you like applicable today?

>

> > It exists and is applied every day.

>

> Sorry, no. Rape is illegal and the rapist goes to prison, whether the

> victim was a virgin or a prostitute. Stoning your child is murder.

> Forcing a slave to obey his master is a felony. MOST Biblical law is

> NOT applied today.

In modern societies, yes, but the world is much larger and more

primitive.

> >In any case, my argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern

> >evangelicals is wrong.

>

> Interpretation is wrong. Reading the words just as they're written is

> right -

Which Bible are you talking about? All the translations are different.

> except that it shows what a barbaric, immoral document the

> Bible is, so people like you have to "interpret" (read "make up")

> things that make it look better than it is.

Your assumption that one can just read the Bible literally is simply

false. Again, which translation are you talking about?

> We no longer turn our

> vanquished enemies' pre-pubescent daughters into concubines (Numbers

> 31:18). Even many Christians claim that Biblical law no longer

> applies (Numbers 5). And what Christian even makes a pretense of

> obeying Levitical Law, which shall be the law, unchanged by even a

> punctuation mark, as long as Heaven and Earth exist, according to the

> Bible?

No Christian that I know believes he is required to obey all the

Levitical law.

> Unless, of course, the Bible is not to be taken literally, and we just

> accept those parts we like - in which case most of Christianity goes

> out the window.

It depends on how you interpret it.

> You can't have it both ways, unless you're a Salad Bar Christian.

You can interpret what Jesus is claimed to have said in the context of

what other mystics and "holy men" of other religions have said. I have

no obligation to believe all that is in the Bible. All that I am

claiming is that there is a reasonable interpretation of his words in

this context, and that it seems likely that there was a man called

Jesus who people found quite extraordinary... extraordinary enough so

that they claimed he performed miracles and was in fact God. Happens

all the time.

> Which is saying that you make it up as you go, but claim that it's "in

> the Bible" - making you a devout Hypocrite, not a Christian.

Interesting. I never said anything about being devout or a Christian.

How did you get that?

Baldin Lee Pramer

On 14 Apr 2007 23:26:34 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 11:03 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

>> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in

>> >> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted

>> >> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship

>> >> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as

>> >> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is

>> >> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that

>> >> > they can focus their full attention on God.

>>

>> >> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.

>>

>> > Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a

>> > mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done.

>>

>> So all you can do pull the meaning straight out of your ass?

>

>Of course not. I understand perfectly well that there are different

>levels of proof

We're not asking for proof, we're asking for evidence.

>> What makes your arbitrary guess any more authoritative than anyone else's

>> arbitrary guess?

>It is not an arbitrary guess. It is an interpretation

Meaning it's your opinion.

> informed by an

>understanding of the history of many religions and the psychology of

>religious experience.

Which is EXACTLY what the literalist view is. That you don't agree

with their "interpretation informed by an understanding of the history

of many religions and the psychology of religious experience" is

meaningless - they don't agree with yours, so there's absolutely no

difference, unless one or the other has actual evidence.

>Again with the insults. Why do you assume I am just making it up with

>no evidence?

Because you post no evidence. You even claim that it's all your

opinion.

>> But you can't appeal to any evidence. All you can do is make-up what you

>> think Jesus meant.

>Again, an assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up. You

>know nothing about the historical evidence that went into my claim.

"Historical evidence", unless it's Jesus' DNA, or an eye-witness

account, or something equally unimpeachable, is merely your opinion

based on some things you've read, which are merely the opinions of the

authors.

>I suspect you think I am some sort of religious nut. Sorry, but I am

>quite rational.

Religious belief is, by definition, irrational.

>> No. An argument alone is not suffient, since anyone can make-up a competeing

>> argument that is just as valid as yours.

>

>Of course they cannot. All arguments are not created equal.

But no argument ARE equally merely opinions.

>> The only thing that separates the arbitrary guess from the best explanation

>> given the evidence is evidence. Without it, there's no way to distinguish

>> nonsense from sense.

>You have indicated that you are not interested in any evidence.

That's all we ARE interested in. We're not interested in your

"interpretations" of the evidence, JUST in the evidence itself.

> I offered to make a plausible argument

That would be your opinion, not evidence.

>and you claimed it would be insufficient.

OF COURSE it would be - as evidence, since it's not.

>> Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist

>> interpretation?

>Yes, of course. A literalist begins with the assumption that the Bible

>is the revealed word of God.

MANY literalists begin with the assumption that they can find the

truth by interpreting the evidence, and end with the conclusion that

the Bible is literally true.

YOU begin with the assumption that the Bible is at least partially

true and, Lo! and behold, you arrive at the "conclusion" that the

Bible is partially true. Clearly a case of assuming your conclusion.

>> Or anyone else's interpretation?

>It depends on who is making the argument.

Evidence doesn't depend on who, it depends on what. Einstein's theory

of Special Relativity would be just as valid if it were Jones' theory

of Special Relativity.

On 14 Apr 2007 23:08:21 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 11:32 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

>> There's mention of thousands of other god in other sacred writings, that are

>> "Historical records of sorts". Do you credit them with the same authority?

>The Jesus in the Bible is a man who is credited with miracles, not a

>god in the same sense as Greek or Norse gods, for instance.

That would make him even less believable. It would make people want

to believe more, but that would weaken the case, not strengthen it.

>> Are you willing to make the same claim concerning Thor, or Zeus, or Ra?

>Of course not. They appear in a completely different context. Jesus,

>Buddha, Mohammed and other historical figures appear in a different

>context than Thor, Zeus and Ra.

Mithras appears in the same context as Jesus. In fact, Jesus shares

MANY characteristics with Mithras - born on December 25th, of a

virgin, their followers had to eat of their flesh and drink of their

blood, etc.

Are you willing to accept Mithras as being as real as Jesus?

>> If not, then we can conclude your use of the term "reasonable", means

>> "biased".

>No, that conclusion would be based on a misunderstanding of the

>different contexts in which the gods you mentioned and the people I

>mentioned appear.

Reality doesn't depend on context. If I'm in an African jungle, the

Amazon rainforest or the Sahara, I still exist. Jesus, for whom

there's not the SLIGHTEST SHRED of objective evidence either existed

or not, regardless of context. Mithras, the same. Thor, Odin, Jove,

Zeus - all the same. There's no evidence of any of them. The SOLE

difference is that you need to believe that Jesus existed, and that's

not evidence that Jesus existed, it's evidence AGAINST the existence

of a real Jesus.

On 15 Apr 2007 13:04:07 -0700, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>Splendid interpretation, Mr. Pramer. You do indeed have more depth

>than the average scientist.

Hip depth? Or has he piled it deeper than that by now?

On Apr 15, 7:07 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2007 23:26:34 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

> >> Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist

> >> interpretation?

> >Yes, of course. A literalist begins with the assumption that the Bible

> >is the revealed word of God.

>

> MANY literalists begin with the assumption that they can find the

> truth by interpreting the evidence, and end with the conclusion that

> the Bible is literally true.

Then they are not interpreting the evidence honestly.

> YOU begin with the assumption that the Bible is at least partially

> true and, Lo! and behold, you arrive at the "conclusion" that the

> Bible is partially true. Clearly a case of assuming your conclusion.

No. I begin with the assumption that it is more reasonable to assume a

man called Jesus existed, and was the center of the subsequent myths,

and do not end with the assumption that the Bible is partially true. I

drew no conclusion of that nature.

> >> Or anyone else's interpretation?

> >It depends on who is making the argument.

>

> Evidence doesn't depend on who, it depends on what. Einstein's theory

> of Special Relativity would be just as valid if it were Jones' theory

> of Special Relativity.

Evidence is different from argument. If someone argues from a position

that the Bible is the literal word of God, their argument is based on

an unjustifiable assumption, no matter what evidence subsequently

appears in the argument.

Baldin Lee Pramer