yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/08/84)
Will the real Mike Huybensz please stand up? Your first two paragraphs contradicted one another. Jeff's criticisms have been that Christian perspectives of Christianity are correct and Judaic perspectives of Christianity are not. Then you agree that the Christian perspective is probably not correct. Make up your mind. It would also be appropriate to be specific and indicate what you are talking about so that readers can judge the merits of your logic or lack of same. Otherwise, you really haven't said anything. It does seem typical of the 'ugly American' syndrome that we seem to be very arrogant in presuming to know more about communism than the communists, more about Nicaragua than the Nicaraguans, more about Cuba than the Cubans, more about.... ad infinitum. Somewhere there will have to be a recognition that these things just aren't so. Presuming to know more about Judaism than the Jews is just one example. Mike indicates that he in interested in "the range of possible interpretations", yet is convinced by Jeff that the Judaic perspec- tive of an ancient Jewish sect is not not in that range of possible interpretations... Oooook. Want to buy a nice property in SW Florida?
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/13/84)
In article <1694@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: >Will the real Mike Huybensz please stand up? Your first two paragraphs >contradicted one another. Jeff's criticisms have been that Christian >perspectives of Christianity are correct and Judaic perspectives of >Christianity are not. Then you agree that the Christian perspective is >probably not correct. Make up your mind. ... Yiri, your insistance on a false dilemma is silly. The world is not black and white. Both you and Jeff are probably partially correct, much as in the story of the blind men and the elephant. I get the impression from most of your writings that you [Yiri] chauvanistically insist that the elephant is like a rope. That's why I applaud selectively whenever one of you makes an argument that should force you to grope in another location as well. >It does seem typical of the 'ugly American' syndrome that we seem to be >very arrogant in presuming to know more about communism than the >communists, more about Nicaragua than the Nicaraguans, more about Cuba >than the Cubans, more about.... ad infinitum. Somewhere there will have >to be a recognition that these things just aren't so. Presuming to know >more about Judaism than the Jews is just one example. Another typical Yiri ad-hominem villification. Show me an example of this syndrome that I've written. The fact is that anyone can know something about Judaism. If you disagree with something I've said, illustrate how it is wrong with something other than a fallacy of argument. >Mike indicates that he in interested in "the range of possible >interpretations", yet is convinced by Jeff that the Judaic perspec- >tive of an ancient Jewish sect is not not in that range of possible >interpretations.... You've misread me, Yiri-- sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough. I agreed that there are substantial sources of error in your interpretations, just as there are in current Christian interpretations. The amount of error in each is unknown to any of us. My interest in particular interpretations is for the purpose of enhancing my own eclectic system of ideas. I don't need to discard ideas because they are inauthentic: I may prefer them because they are of value today. Thus I'm interested in hearing your ideas even if they are likely to be blatant misinterpretations. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh