Denis Lamoureux

Hi,
Actually that's Cardinal Baronio's aphorism, you'll read it stated so in Galileo's "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" (1615).

But more importantly, what I find so shocking and frustating in this forum is how people read & believe what they want to read & believe. For example, where in any of my posts do you get a hint of "Lamoureux seems to be stating is that the Bible also tells us how the heavens go --- as discovered by a long, convoluted, and contrived process of "interpretation". "

What utter nonsense! Here's the aphorism featured prominently on my home page:

"The purpose of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created."

In addition, I've made comments regarding the simplistic fundamentalist hermeneutics revealed in many posts in this forum. The response to me has been mockery of my use of the terms 'hermeneutics' & 'exegesis.' And deliciously, almost prophetically, this is exactly what happens when I challenge Christian fundamentalists! Thus, my claim that a number of you skeptics have a fundie hermeneutic (sorry, interpretive model) is affirmed by your very words.

If you are going to make statements about the Bible with regard to the origins debate, then you are FORCED to know something about hermeneutics (sorry, Biblical interpretation). And, sorry for saying this, and ya, pulling rank on most of you, but I teach hermeneutics at the university level, and what I've read on this forum wouldn't get many of you much more than a C- in any university/college.

Regards,
Denis

pz

You've got everything backwards and wrong, which would get you an F in any university/college.

The atheists here do not have a "fundie hermeneutic" -- quite the contrary, they reject such a method of interpretation, and routinely mock it. We are constantly exposed to that "fundie hermeneutic", and many of us are living in a country that is trying to legislate such an approach into our schools. It's simply absurd to accuse someone who is explicitly stating that a literal interpretation of genesis is wrong of being a fundamentalist. That tactic would make you, a person claiming to be using a more sophisticated and superior hermeneutic, a fundamentalist. May I presume that that would be incorrect?

Perhaps one reason that hermeneutics and exegesis are getting mocked here is not because interpretation and analysis are considered bad, but because we atheists find the subject of your interpretation and analysis to be a ridiculous waste of time. You may dress it up in five-dollar words and college classes, but you're still studying crap...and that is definitely not a "fundie" attitude.

I also disagree with what you think the purpose of the bible might be. It is not "to teach us that God is the Creator", but to exalt an ancient tribal power structure. God doesn't come into it, except as a primitive boogey man.

I suppose you'll use that to accuse me of being a christian fundie, too?

lpetrich

Denis Lamoureux:
Hi,
Actually that's Cardinal Baronio's aphorism, you'll read it stated so in Galileo's "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" (1615).

Attributed to him by Galileo; have Cardinal Baronius's writings (if any) survived?

But more importantly, what I find so shocking and frustating in this forum is how people read & believe what they want to read & believe. For example, where in any of my posts do you get a hint of "Lamoureux seems to be stating is that the Bible also tells us how the heavens go --- as discovered by a long, convoluted, and contrived process of "interpretation". "

Look at how you argue from the Bible, Mr. Lamoureux. You seem to be arguing that it's written in some secret code which you are able to crack to find all sorts of details about the world around us.

By comparison, the Baronius/Galileo statement seems much more straightforward.

What utter nonsense! Here's the aphorism featured prominently on my home page:

"The purpose of the Bible is to teach us that God is the Creator, and not how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit created."

Except that it is really "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes."

Warcraft3

Well that was a horrible, horrible post.


Russ

Kevbo

Doesn't "hermeneutics" take its root from a Greek word meaning "says one thing, but means something else when what it says is wrong?"

Warcraft3

Hey that post made some excellent points and was completely void of any insulting comments. Way to go pz!!!

You get the...........
Hey, Im an atheist who never uses insulting, emotional arguments against theists award.


Russ

Warcraft3

Ummmm no. No kevbo it doesnt. It really,really doesnt.

But thanks for playing.......


Russ

Kevbo

That's funny, because I swear that's exactly how everyone uses it

pz

Yes, it was. So?

pz

It was very hermeneutical.