Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Exactly.

As when a person is accused of advocating a literalist interpretation of the Bible as opposed to practicing a literal reading of the passage at hand, which is the foundation of any further interpretation (JLNobody)

Or when a person is accused of supporting their views on Bible verses when, perhaps, what was meant was that the person had mentioned some Bible verses... which may be necessary when speaking about the Bible and Christianity (cavfancier).

:wink:

Another one of his evidential statements.

maliagar, 'terminal inexactitudes' would technically only refer to improper use of words, not lack of evidence.

Exactly.

As when a person is accused of advocating a literalist interpretation of the Bible as opposed to practicing a literal reading of the passage at hand, which is the foundation of any further interpretation (JLNobody)

Or when a person is accused of supporting their views on Bible verses when, perhaps, what was meant was that the person had mentioned some Bible verses... which may be necessary when speaking about the Bible and Christianity (cavfancier).

:wink:

My god, there is an echo in this chamber.

truth
Maliagar, your "different frequency" comment hit the nail on the head--such exactitude! That's what it is, a real and very deep clash of cultures. Theists and secularists really can't talk about many things.

Re: truth
Oh yes, they can. That's the value of reason, argument, and evidence.

Now, people cannot talk when they are not willing to reason, argue, and bring their evidence.

:wink:

truth
Maliagar, NO WE CAN'T

its most likely a linquistic problem, we dont have a common understanding of the words we use.

Re: truth


Only if we don't rely on reason, argument, and EVIDENCE...

:wink:

True, that's usually a problem. But it can be solved quickly, by agreeing on certain operational definitions...

:wink:

.....like "creationism."

maligar thats very difficult to do when both sides of an issue use nominal definitions.

truh
As I see it, differences in understandings is only part of the divide. There is also a more personal, psychological factor. It is virtually impossible for Maliagar and other theists to even consider as valid explanations and theories that contradict the theistic premise. And conversely, I confess, it is impossible for me to seriously entertain theories that depend on the existence of a supernatural diety. It's a matter of conflicting commitments as well as understandings.
Despite this realization, I'm still convinced that my secular perspective is the superior, the more realistic and beneficial, one.

Re: truh

Sometimes.



Not true. I can consider their merits or lack of them. To be valid, they need to fulfill certain requirements (logic, evidence, etc.). That's done every day in schools of philosophy and theology all over the world: study theories and their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses. A believer does NOT have to embrace a particular theory on, for example, our ability to rationally prove the existence of God. You'll see Christians all over the spectrum on this one.

This is called philosophical training. As in the hard sciences, in which people that have been exposed to the academic discipline ought to be able to consider any hypotheses... provided that they follow certain basic standards of plausibility.

St. Thomas Aquinas did not share the arguments of the radical empiricists, but he would be able to consider them in their own right. Eistein did not like the implications of quantum mechanics, but he certainly was able to consider that theory in its own merits. It is called "the rational approach" to things.


Perhaps you need some philosophical training.



The real question is if your conviction comes from reason or from faith. If from reason, you ought to be able to rationally consider even those alternatives that you don't like.

:wink:

Honestly don't know, I found that avatar a long time ago and don't even remember where it came from.

Now I'd love to be able to use these two as avatars, but neither would work at the 90x90 pixel size...

Standing in for George W. Bush?

Bush or Chimp?

Cephus, I'm pretty sure Dubya doesn't get as much nookie as a Bonobo, and certainly none from the male persuasion...as is fairly common in Bonobo communities, not that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom or anything.

Nice pics, btw