From: jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:15:30 MST

X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 8937
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
From: geoff@tyger.Eng.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:02:26 GMT

[By the way, Jim, your quoting style - indenting your stuff
by a tab or so - is really confusing and annoying, given that
most people indent the previous material. Could you think about
switching around?]

    Certainly, Geoff.  But you see, my text editor doesn't add little
    symbols at the beginning of each line, so to distinguish my remarks
    from the previous poster, I indent 4 spaces.

    Now this happens (as if any of you are really interested) because
    I download the posts I wish to read or comment on, and I do the
    editting on my PC.	This saves network time charges on the VAX.

    Occasionally, I feel compelled to follow-up a post while on the
    news server, and then it adds the symbols to the previous text
    and I follow your advice and don't indent.

Quoth jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com (in <1992Aug25.082916.311@doc.bmd.trw.com>):
[My previous stuff deleted.]

Given that Webster defines "hermeneutics" as "the study of the
methodological principles of interpretation [as of the Bible]", I would
say that that last sentence is nonsense. Making the indicated
substitution it reads "I use the principles of the study of the
methodological principles of interpretation for correct contextual
interpretation". In other words, hermeneutics is the study of
principles of interpretation, it is *not* a particular interpretation
model which can be used to categorise Biblical passages. A C compiler
would complain about this as "warning: illegal pointer combination" :-)

    Thank you for pointing that out to me.  I used the word
    "hermeneutics" in the connotative sense I which I've heard
    it used on various radio programs.	I apologize for using a
    connotative sense derived from spoken context and not taking
    the time to look it up to determine how it was actually defined.
    I will try to use it more properly in the future.

Let's charitably assume that you intended to make sense:

    Thank you.	You are very gracious.

Your original sentence clearly indicates that you have a mental
decision model, J (for Jim) which maps elements of the Bible onto
meaning-classes.  Hermeneutics is the study of different decision
models (or "methodological principles of interpretation"). Obviously
there are many such models - for example, mine (G) maps exclusively
onto history, mythology and poetry. If you claim to be a student of
hermeneutics and that you have a usuable model J, you are implying that
you have studied these different models and determined that J is
superior to G, H, I, K, L, etc. What was the decision procedure you
used in making this choice?  Intuition?  Meta-hermeneutics?

    Good point.  I personally use a combination of orthodox doctrine,
    intuition, and guidance from the Holy Spirit.  That last is the
    most important, however.

And if you
used any Biblical elements in arriving at your choice, is this not
irretrievably circular and thus empty?

    Not actually circular, but axiomatic.  Any philosophy that says
    "this is the way we interpret this text, and therefore this text
    says so-in-so" is premising their method of interpretation as an
    axiom.  It would only be circular if we said that we interpreted
    the text (using this method) to say that this method of interpre-
    tation was correct.  That would be using the method to create a
    foundation for using the method.  That's circularity.

    But if we say that "method (J) is the one to use" and that in
    using method (J) we find no internal inconsistency, then the
    premise to use method (J) [regardless of the reasons to choose
    it] is not circular but a foundational axiom.

(Since under a different
interpretation, say K, these very Biblical elements might have
a different meaning, or no meaning at all?)

    Granted, but that doesn't make the method (J) circular necessarily.

Why not be honest and say that you pick the interpretations that
make you feel most comfortable/least uncomfortable?

Geoff

    I will be honest.  My method of interpretation doesn't make me
    most comfortable or least uncomfortable.  I am comfortable with
    it, yes, but I could think of other methods of biblical
    interpretation that would make me *more* comfortable -- like
    Universalism perhaps.  Then I would be completely comfortable
    in my faith such as Jarek (if you know of him) is.

    My philosophy of interpretation forces me to seek out internal
    consistency within my chosen method of interpretation.  And
    additionally, there must be reasonable correlation with real
    life events.  These constraints, along with the idea that the
    faith and doctrines as defined by the early church should be
    more indicative of the writers' intent than doctrines and
    traditions which were developed later, forces me to accept
    some interpretations that I may not personally like, but I
    have to accept if I am going to remain true to these principles.

    So no, I don't pick the interpretation(s) that make me most
    comfortable or least uncomfortable; I pick the ones I have
    to in order to maintain internal logical consistency, correlation
    with real events, and agreement with early church doctrine.

--
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)
-----------
News software that enforces a four-line .signature limit is responsible for
the fact that these postings just go on and on and on and seem to end in mid-

    Regards,

    Jim B.	   Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com

    =======================================================================
    Best Quote of the Month:  (Pres. Bush to Saddam Hussein)  "Look Saddam,
    either you're going to let our inspectors into your ministry buildings,
    or we're going to drop ACLU lawyers over Baghdad...WITH PARACHUTES!!"
    =======================================================================