[ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] Lamer [ ] AOLer
[ ] Me too er [ ] Perver [ ] Geek
[ ] Spammer [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis
[X] Fundie [ ] Freak [ ] Scientologist
You Are Being Flamed Because:
[X] You have made no attempt to engage in menaningful debate
[X] Your message consisted entirely of preaching
[ ] You are a clueless moron who doesn't know what they're talking about
[ ] You asked a question already answered in the following FAQ:
[ ] You made a claim already refuted at/in: [ ] You posted a "test" in a newsgroup other than alt.test
[ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread [ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message [ ] You said "me too" to something
[ ] Your sig/alias/server sucks
[ ] You made up slang then used it in a message
[ ] You posted a phone-sex ad
[ ] I don't like your tone of voice
To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the FAQ
[ ] Learn netiquette
[X] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month
[ ] Post your tests to alt.test
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Blow me
[ ] Get a life
[ ] Never post again
[X] Take your shit somewhere else
[ ] Learn to post or fuck off
[ ] All of the above
end flame
Jeff Lowder <jlowder@atheist.tamu.edu> Internet Infidel and Moderator of soc.atheism PGP Public Key and Other Information Available at: http://freethought.tamu.edu/~jlowder/
On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Knapp, Eric wrote:
>
> Being a skeptic is easy. I was one for years. Chose a harder path; that's
> a real challenge for your intellect.
>
>
> Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road
> that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate
> and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
>
> There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
>
> The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the
> discerning.
>
> Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
>
> Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder
> with the proud.
>
> The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of
> death.
>
>
> Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.
>
> He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
> ----------
> From: Jftill
> To: EKNAPP; jlowder; errancy
> Subject: Hermeneutics
> Date: Thursday, January 25, 1996 1:29AM
>
> ERIC KNAPP
> Go to a Christian bookstore and ask for some information on books
> dealing with Hermanutics (sorry, I've probably spelled it wrong). I can't
> remember the title of the book in particular, but I know there is an
> excellent one published by Baker Books. Hermanutics is the "science" of
> studying the Bible, and will detail why you can't study the Bible the way
> you study other books.
>
> TILL
> I have followed this exchange with interest. I graduated from a Bible
> college and spent 12 years as a preacher and foreign missionary for a
> fundamentalist church. Needless to say, I studied hermeneutics [this is how
> it is spelled] in college, so I would be interested in knowing what Eric is
> talking about when he says that a book on hermeneutics will "detail why you
> can't study the Bible the same way you study other books." After becoming a
> skeptic, I returned to college to retrain for the teaching profession and
> then spent 30 years teaching college English, a part of which involved
> teaching literature. I found that many of the hermeneutic principles that I
> learned at the Bible college are identical to standard literary methods of
> interpretation. The only difference I can remember is that hermeneutic
> courses taught (1) that when inconsistencies and discrepancies were
> encountered in the Bible, one should assume that they are only "apparent"
> and
> that satisfactory explanations can be found with further study, and (2) that
> if satisfactory explanations cannot be found, one should assume that no real
> discrepancies exist and continue looking for satisfactory resolutions that
> may be found with further studies.
>
> Needless to say, this type of uncritical approach was not taught in any
> literary methods courses that I took, and I never taught a single literature
> course in which I told students to read all assignments in the course with
> the assumption that they are inerrant. Other than this, I can't imagine
> what
> Eric had in mind when he said that the Bible cannot be studied like any
> other
> book. I hope he will explain himself and tell us why he thinks it is proper
> to approach the reading of the Bible with the assumption that it is
> inerrant.
> Is this his idea of intellectual honesty?
>
> Farrell Till, Editor
> The Skeptical Review
>