(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Submitted by Robert (United States), Sep 5, 2018 at 14:39

Dear Michael S.

The Web (Internet), through Social Media has made everybody a potential philosopher. And Daniel Pipes has grated us (you and me) to participate in a Dialogue on his Pages.

But unlike you (with all due respect), I do my best to to "digest" what has come before me in History - by which I mean not just the thoughts of the average men in the street, but also accepted Greats of history. For 2,000 years, Jews and Christians have been interpreting the Old Testament. And you too may do so. But remember that your Religious beliefs are Private, if your an American, according to 51 Constitutions (counting the 50 states).

Furthermore, no one will listen to you - except other men in the street - unless your Revisionist views acknowledge and are responsive to History (as it unfolds through Scholarship).

If you want to know I mean by "Experience," its how it is defined, not you, as you understand the Bible,but as the Six (6) Great Western Philosophers, of Great Britain and Continental Europe, meant by it. Here is a Scholarly link that is far more reputable than Wikipedia:

"Rationalism vs. Empiricism" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

The Authorities upon which this encyclopedia relies were extremely well familiar with the Bible.

Regarding your specific discussion of Matrimony, I want to direct your attention that the Bible discusses a time when a Man could have more than One Wife; and he could also have Slaves, or Concubines. The prohibition against Adultery wasn't that hard to obey - it only required a Man to keep his hands Another Neighbor Man's Wife. So if the Man wasn't your neighbor,it was OK.

Not directed related to that, I'd like to introduce you to the "Conservative," William Buckley, and his famous adversary, the "Liberal," Gore Vidal. Once upon a time, Gore Vidal was asked if his first sexual encounter was homosexual, or heterosexual? His reply was, "I was too polite to ask." If you believe in the Bible, your Membership interpretation may remain Private, unless, for some relevant Public Policy reason, you wish to talk about it. The main good thing about Conservatives, maybe half of them (like William Buckley) would say you should be at worst, puttied, but respected. You, however, would want me to join you in Stoning Adulteresses, Adulterers, and Homosexuals. At least, if you were a follower of the Jew Jesus, we would have to discuss whether you or me should through the First Stone. As for me, I simply refuse - because its not for me to tell someone else whom to Love. Furthermore, Adultery is the Private concern of the Married Couple - it's should be a concern to you, Michael, if your the Adulterer, or its your Wife that violates her vows to you. None of this is of any of my business - unless someone tries to stone you or your wife in my presence, in which case I would call the police, or try to stop it before they have a chance to arrive.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".