Religious views on medical treatment

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Perham1]

I found the driving analogy to be a horrible one.

 

[Dionysus]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

Perham1,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

Dionysus,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Dionysus]

No doubt. And others, I’m sure, will find it to be more meaningful.

 

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Dionysus]

Did you just call me unwitty?

OK, I'm tired of this thread. Could someone start another one? Some topics to consider:

- The torture of witches: moral duty, or sport?

- The decline of evolutionary processes in states that begin with 'Okla' and 'Arka'

- Touching myself down there is totally not a sin.

- Talking snakes? WTF.

- Buddha was a lazy *******: true or false?

- Fundamentalist Shinto Terrorists

 

[Monahorns]

Dionysius, I found your change of the topic a horrible one.

 

[pasotex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

I was hoping that by now someone would have come forward to explain exactly how my driving analogy is flawed. Surely Perham1 or Dionysus will provide this explanation soon.

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

Thanks for the response.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Perham1]

But here is what they do say: that the act of choosing an interpretation is proof that all interpretations are arbitrarily chosen.

I have certainly never said that. Or perhaps we are having a problem in defining "arbitary".

Textual analysis and interpretation is fraught with uncertainty, ambiguity, vagueness. That different people can come up with different views in no way means such differing views are arbitrary and is by means "proof" that all such interpretations are arbitrary. Some intrepretations are better than others, some may be arbitary.

The analogy fails because it begs too many questions: as in, we know where we are going, we are sure there is something there, we think we can even get there, that religion/philosophy can be boiled down to a simple grid/coordinate analogy where we just need to "follow directions". Which begs the question of whether we can both interepret the directions and if so, follow them.

The poor analogy also ignores all the cultural and social changes that occur throughout the millennia.

 

[Perham1]

Directions aren't meant to be interpreted, they're to be communicated clearly so the recipient can follow them without ambiguity. Once interpretation enters into it they cease to provide direction.

This is quite good, although I think that direction can be given even if interpretation is involved.

 

[Coelacanth]

Perham1,

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Dionysus]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Coelacanth]

How about you post an analogy, and I'll see if I can break it down.