From: tag@hermes.ecn.purdue.edu (Tony A. Gibbens)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Family Values
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:42:42 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

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.

>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.  

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.


>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.  

>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.  

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. 

Just out of curiosity, haven't you been taught this?

>
>     Cary Perttunen
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton