How to Win an Argument with Tom on Biblical Interpretation

By -

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:22 PM

    Who's Tom?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:34 PM

    Ok. The First Stick Guy quotes some big internet sources, and the Second Stick Guy quotes some less prestigious ones. Aside from First Stick Guy talking about some journals, I don't see how this argument can go somewhere.
    Isn't there some larger question about the presentation of information present here? I mean, if we lived in the Soviet Union, it would seem like you'd have all the universities and professions stacked up against you on issues like higher productivity of capitalism, etc. If everything that claims to be 'professional' and 'respectable' is saying you are wrong and crazy, under what circumstances should you believe them?

    Also, I'm not quite getting this. Did you have some argument with someone about Biblical interpretation, and they cite something you didn't find convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thomas L. Knapp11:20 AM

    Interesting take.

    Obviously my take is a bit different. The most important difference, I think, is that you appear to think that we're having an argument that one side or the other needs to "win."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:53 AM

      Tom, I'm just joshing you.

      Delete
    2. Thomas L. Knapp4:56 PM

      Works for me, Gene!

      I do want to elaborate on my point of view, though.

      I don't really discuss religion, or my beliefs relating to it, very often or in very many places. This is one of those places, because I think you do take religious belief seriously rather than just considering it another football to kick around.

      In discussing religious belief -- as opposed to, say, politics -- my goal is not really to persuade anyone of anything. It's more a matter of being interested in saying "here's what I believe and why" versus what someone else may believe and why, and seeing if anything interesting comes of it.

      I'm not disinterested in persuasion because I don't think it's important. I'm disinterested in persuasion because almost any religious belief by definition includes a strong element of faith.

      Faith is not really subject to empirical proof or disproof, and (assuming certain things even MAY be true) it is foolhardy, and perhaps downright evil, to intentionally attempt to prang someone else's.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5:52 PM

      Who is this Tom? Is he part of the conspiracy?

      Delete
    4. gcallah9:47 PM

      Tom is Knappster.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more