[extropy-chat] Way, way, way over the edge...

[Darin Sunley]

Exactly which part are you objecting to? Most of what I'm giving you
is a qualitative description of the beliefs of a group of people. The
question was "What is the Biblical basis for X"? I'm explaining,
without going into an excessive amount of pendantic detail, how most
Christians would answer that question. If you want systematic theology
with lots and lots of scripture references, descriptions of the
minutinae of translating Hebrew into Greek, and quotes from Church
fathers and leading theologians, there's lots available. I refer you
to the works of Norman Geisler, but primarily to the Bible itself. The
Pauline Epistle to the Romans contains the bulk of his writings
regarding sexual morality. I also refer you to the Old Testament book
of Leviticus, particularly chapters 18-20. As the ancient Hebrew
worldview was radically different from our own, you'll probably want
to read several translations in order to eliminate spurious cultural
transliterations. A good online facility for this exists at
blueletterbible.org.

On this list, I cangenerally  assume my audience has a very solid,
nigh encyclopedic background on, and interest in history, physics,
computer science, and mathematics. I cannot assume any particular
knowledge in systematic theology, and I certainly cannot assume a lot
of interest in it.

Let's be real here: If I HAD written a 30 page tome on Systematic
Theology, deriving Christian theology as it pertains to marriage from
an exhaustive list of scriptural quotes, cross referenceing with a
dozen noted theologians you had never heard of, you wouldn't even have
read the message, would you have?

Logical proof has certain very specific limitations. I cannot prove to
you, even to the lackadaisical standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"
that I posess subjective conscious experience, and that I experiance
qualia of colour and sound. If I can't do that for myself, I hardly
see how anybody could do it for God.

Virtually nothing of any significance in the universe will fit into
the end of a syllogism. Salvation certainly will not.

I thank you for you comments on the form of my message. I invite your
comments on the actual content of what I wrote.

Sincerely,
Darin Sunley
dsunley at gmail.com


On 4/18/06, Alan Baltis <Alan_Baltis at progressive.com> wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice (and now comment on) the remarkable difference
> between this post and 98% of the other posts to this list. Virtually every
> other message here emphasizes facts, cites references, uses logic to build
> from a set of facts or assertions to a conclusion. And in fact often cite
> footnotes for support, or state known limitations to that conclusion.
>
> This post does not and, being composed of religious belief, of course can
> not. A series of unsupported statements, nearly unrelated though otherwise
> is implied, leading to unfounded conclusions. The contrast is startling.
>
> I know which style of message I prefer. I know what I need to be willing to
> share things with friends with confidence and enthusiasm. But I also know
> that higher standard doesn't seem too popular, that for many people the
> dogma is sufficient and convincing, and rigorous thought is more confusing,
> even threatening, than the "easy" version. Heartbreaking.
>
> - Al