Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!gatech!cbosgd!smk
From: smk@cbosgd.ATT.COM (Stephen Kennedy)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dubuc/ Reply to Stuart Gathman on (historical) causal imputation
Message-ID: <2646@cbosgd.ATT.COM>
Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 22:18:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2646
Posted: Tue Sep 30 22:18:37 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 19:57:35 EDT
References: <3335@umcp-cs.UUCP> <970@hou2g.UUCP> <638@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: smk@cbosgd.UUCP (Steve Kennedy)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 32
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:333 net.religion.christian:4792

In article ??? Paul Dubuc writes:
>I think maybe you haven't studied enough.  There are certainly 
>fundamentalists who interpret Scripture as you say.  I see a similarity
>(as far as intellectual integrity and *modesty* is concerned) between
>that and the way rationalists (like you) take one kind of knowing
>(scientific knowledge) and treat is as the only kind.
>
You've made this comment about scientific knowledge many time before.
While I'm not opposed to the idea there may be other kinds of knowing,
I still haven't figured out what _your_ kind of knowing is.  I would
say a kind of knowing which can't decide anything is useless.  From what
you've said before on the subject, I can't honestly see how you can decide
anything, yet you obviously do.  What gives?

[stuff deleted]

>
>Luther sawed while standing on the Bible.  I don't think there is
>anything that secular theology is standing on.  I rather think the

Aargh.  Yet another "proof" by appeal to the presupposed importance
of the Bible...

>-- 
>
>Paul Dubuc	cbdkc1!pmd

Steve Kennedy	cbosgd!smk

President, Rich Rosen Fan Club

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Bell Labs (unless threatened)