From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:58:08 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep28.204242.1970@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens) writes:
> In article <1992Sep25.002336.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.190524.7185@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>> In article <1992Sep22.074155.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep17.182243.10328@microsoft.com>, philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>>>> In article <1992Sep15.200309.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes: 
> 
> Lot of stuff deleted to save space.  My follow up comment deals with the 
> below comments anyways.
> 
>>> 
>>
>>     All it takes for me to illustrate my contention (that the Bible
>>is not entirely symbolic) is to show one counterexample; but for
>>your contention (that the Bible is entirely symbolic), you must
>>prove that every verse is symbolic.  That is obviously not
> 
> WRONG, INCORRECT, FALSE.  To prove that the Bible is entirely symbolic,
> one would have to prove that supposed meanningful passages (need not be 
> verses, paragraphs, etc) had different meanings than explicitly expressed.

     You shouldn't have deleted to save space.  You would then see
I was asked to show one counterexample, and my reply was meant
to imply that the gentleman would have to prove that that all verses
(however you want to subdivide it) are symbolic to verify his point.  
You are indirectly correct in saying only *supposed* meaningful passages 
need to be examined -- only because all passages in the Bible are
meaningful.

>>possible, so I will not ask of you what you ask of me.  Here
>>goes:
>>
>>     Deut 5:19 - Neither shalt thou steal.
>>
>>I claim that this can be taken at face value.  Now, it's your turn.
> 
> Little child, it is easy to dream up (and obtain from history) examples 
> where if this policy was not ment to be followed exactly.  Just
> for you little undergrad brain, how about the encryption device that
> the we managed to obtain during WWII.  What, should we of given back
> the device and possibly lost the war along with the lives.  Come on boy,
> I don't see any foot notes on the above passage saying "unless lives
> are in danger".  Thus, the passage clearly can not be taken at face value.
> Unless of course, you believe that the potential loss of lives in the above
> example were of less consequence than breaking the verse.  

     Wow -- "little child," "little undergrad brain," "boy" (you're
lucky I'm not an African-American!) -- I get the impression you
do not like me!  That's fine -- I will not embarrass you by
including my vita.  Your argument is purely *semantic* about the 
word "steal."  That is where it is important to read the entire
Bible to see the other contexts in which the word "steal" is used
-- to get an idea of the definition of "steal."  Let me give you
an example using the "Thou shalt not kill" verse.  If one just
reads this, one may think that it is wrong to kill animals.
However, other verses show that man has dominion over the earth,
Adam and Eve were clothed with animal skins, etc.  So, I claim
that *your* argument can be summarized by saying "steal" symbolizes
"steal" and we must next determine the definition of "steal."
True symbolism includes things like the beast with ten horns
and seven heads, and determining the significance of the horns
and heads.
 
> Thus, I have seemed to have raised doubts as to the above statement
> not being symbolic.  Please note that I have not proven the statement
> symbolic, only shown an example where if followed exactly, greater 
> harm (well, to most methods of valuement) would of resulted.

     Why don't you try to take a shot at trying to prove the
statement to be symbolic?  I won't call you any names if
you mess up.... 
 
>>Since you claim the *entire* text is symbolic, please discuss how
>>this *one* verse cannot be taken at face value.  Let me give you
> 
> Well, I gave an example that I believe that any GOD (not implying
> any belief here) would of perfered the stealing.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     Wait a minute -- I was under the assumption that you have
read the Bible and spent time trying to understand it.  If
you have not, do you really care if the Bible is symbolic or not?
Regardless, I would be happy to try to answer any questions you
may have (though I do not claim to have *all* the answers).

>>a starting point -- you need to either claim that 'thou' (the subject)
>>symbolizes something (it's hard to make a pronoun become a symbol)
>>or that 'steal' (the verb) symbolizes something.  When I look in
>>a Bible concordance, the verses that use 'steal' do not seem to be
>>esoteric in any sense.  Therefore, unless one learned reading
>>by the Whole Language Method, one can reasonably conclude this
>>verse is to be taken literally -- just as I reasonably concluded
>>that your questions were to be taken literally.  How do you 
>>interpret this verse?  
> 
> Well, I dare say much better than you.  To be exact, since you thought
> highly enough of yourself to give us all a lesson in english, let me
> give you a lesson in language and language processing.  

     Sorry, but when I'm speaking of the Bible, I want to humble
myself.  If it looked like I was lecturing you personally, I 
apologize.  I hope my Ph.D. in CS makes me intelligent enough
to understand your language processing lesson.
 
> To quote a verse like this ignores various aspects which aid in determing
> its meaning.  Just to name a few, context of time, context of original 
> language, context of speaker, context of surrounding passages, speaker's
> intent, speaker's experience, etc.  All of these aid in determining the
> meaning of passages of language.  To neglect a significant portion of these
> is to usually miss-understand a passage. 

     Read the beginning of the thread.  I pointed out that the
Bible cannot be understood verse-by-verse -- that all interpretation
must be consistent (in a closure sense).  I pointed out that
my interpretation is limited by the English translations that I
have.  I pointed out that knowledge of world history is important
in understanding the symbolism in the prophetic books of the Old
Testament.  Therefore, for the most part, I agree with what you say in
the preceding paragraph.
 
> Just out of curiosity, haven't you been taught this?

     Well, I will amuse you, and say that you just taught me this.
Thank you for the natural language processing lecture -- I owe you
one.  Maybe someday I can lecture you in Bayesian Global Optimization
methods.  :-)
 
     C. Perttunen 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality