Re: Dispelling the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Myth

Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > -- and I note you haven't yet answered my post.
>
> > Which one would that be?
>
> The one from 11/30 which discussed Mason and "primitive"
> cultures.

I'll Google it later. I've replied to every post from you that I got off 
my server.

> <snip>
>
> > > And why should you call me a luddite? 
>
> > The shoe fits.
>
>
> > > I've given no indication I want
> > > to destroy technology, or oppose technology when properly used. 
>
> > Your little qualification is your shoe. It fits.
>
> So you support technology when improperly used?  Anything is
> O.K., as long as it involves use of modern machinery and
> industrial/technological stuff?  

I don't determine proper/improper use. I do distinguish between crimes 
like murder, but means are irrelevant.

> The attack on 9/11 was just
> dandy because it involved an airplane?

It was wrong for a whole lot of reasons, none of which are technological 
in nature.

> Of course one has to qualify the use of technology -- it is
> a tool, anything from a flaked handaxe to a modern space
> shuttle to a bomb.  A hammer is a form of technology, but a
> hammer becomes technology misused when someone uses it to
> murder someone else by whacking him on the head with it.

Irrelevant comparison. Technology is neutral.

> > > I've
> > > just said that a high level of technology in itself does not make a
> > > culture's ideas more or less valuable.  Since you hold to a literalist
> > > interpretation of the bible, 
>
> > Where have I said what I believe?
>
> Where you claimed the bible could not be illuminated by the Holy
> Spirit or our interpretation of the text change over time.

I think you better go back and read what I actually wrote before you 
stick words like THOSE in my mouth. I think I only took exception to 
your statement that the Holy Spirit was behind your church's radical and 
novel interpretations of Scripture. Your positions (AR, homosexuality) 
are *not* an evolution of various interpretations, they are *novel* -- 
and in order to get to your *radical* positions, one must dismiss 
Scripture altogether (e.g., Hyland's redactions, dismissing all of the 
Pauline references to homosexuality, Jude 7, etc.).

> > > I assume you agree with that.
>
> > Ever see Walter Matthau in "Bad News Bears"?
>
> No.

ASSUME... don't make an ASS out of U or ME.