It's a matter of whether someone can provide a better account of any given text's meaning than someone else. Opinions can indead vary but some opinions are better than others. To argue against that idea, like some radical deconstructivist, is just silly on your part.

The truth is the Bible makes it very clear how full of shit and horrific it is and Christian "moderates" and theologians just cherry pick and spin it in ways to suit them with their B.S. milder interpretations of obvious horror, filth and idiocy.

And @ the OP... the spindoctor theologians and moderate interpretations are less valid if anything than the more straightforward interpretations by the fundies.

(October 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:36‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Decide whether or not you have a common ancestor with bananas or that you have a soul which God loves

Oh, fuck off. Your preaching was old before you even got here.

(October 23, 2015 at 11:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It's a matter of whether someone can provide a better account of any given text's meaning than someone else. Opinions can indead vary but some opinions are better than others. To argue against that idea, like some radical deconstructivist, is just silly on your part.

We're not talking "any given text," we're talking about the bible here, supposedly a document which channels the truth of God. Now there are numerous truths involved in that question. First, the book contains wholly fictitious events like the Exodus and the global flood. It's well acknowledged that some of the books in the New Testament are patent forgeries, yet this fact is somehow not supposed to affect the integrity of the text. And it's clear that the process of choosing what to keep in and what to leave out was an ideologically and politically driven enterprise conducted by men without any real expertise in evaluating texts for authenticity.

The hypothesis that some sort of standard of realism can be used to decipher the "meaning" of this text was thrown under the bus some time ago. Comparing the opinions about the meaning of the text to a historical reconstruction of the life of a well-documented U.S. president is ludicrous. You don't have justified opinions; you have a cascade of ad hoc suppositions about how to reconcile obviously fantastical bullshit with seeming historical accounts. It's worse than radical deconstructionism. It's pesharim and cognitive dissonance raised to a fine art. "Interpreters" quibble about the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words while the elephant in the room is the fact that no measure of realism need apply. It's already been ruled out of court by the very act of accepting it whole as a sacred text. You may not like the advances in biblical criticism that the last three hundred years has wrought, but to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you can roll back the march of progress with "the right interpretive stance" is sheer folly.

(October 23, 2015 at 6:05 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
‭‭John‬ ‭3:36‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Decide whether or not you have a common ancestor with bananas or that you have a soul which God loves

It's sponges, get it right. 

That other part is just egotistical self-absorption; and totally at odds with what is written in that nasty book.

What you believe has no effect on the facts. This seems to be a common misconception. You can't just "decide" stuff and then it happens.

If you can, then that's a sure sign you're referring to an imaginary version of reality in your own mind.

(October 21, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(October 20, 2015 at 10:01 pm)Strider Wrote: On the contrary, many of the atheists, agnostics, and others here know quite a bit about the bible. Some, such as myself, are former churchgoers and know about as much about the bible as any other person sitting in the pews on a given Wednesday or Sunday. As a matter of fact, I'd say that I didn't really start reading the bible critically until what little faith I had was gone.

 I disagree, some of you have read the Bible but you take to it with a negative attitude, biased against it. Actually I've seen little from you that would make me believe you understand the Bible. 

GC

Translation: 

You don't agree with me, so you can't possibly understand the bible. 

Jesus Jackhammering Christ, GC. 

(October 24, 2015 at 2:09 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 11:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It's a matter of whether someone can provide a better account of any given text's meaning than someone else. Opinions can indead vary but some opinions are better than others. To argue against that idea, like some radical deconstructivist, is just silly on your part.

We're not talking "any given text," we're talking about the bible here, supposedly a document which channels the truth of God. Now there are numerous truths involved in that question. First, the book contains wholly fictitious events like the Exodus and the global flood. It's well acknowledged that some of the books in the New Testament are patent forgeries, yet this fact is somehow not supposed to affect the integrity of the text. And it's clear that the process of choosing what to keep in and what to leave out was an ideologically and politically driven enterprise conducted by men without any real expertise in evaluating texts for authenticity.

The hypothesis that some sort of standard of realism can be used to decipher the "meaning" of this text was thrown under the bus some time ago. Comparing the opinions about the meaning of the text to a historical reconstruction of the life of a well-documented U.S. president is ludicrous. You don't have justified opinions; you have a cascade of ad hoc suppositions about how to reconcile obviously fantastical bullshit with seeming historical accounts. It's worse than radical deconstructionism. It's pesharim and cognitive dissonance raised to a fine art. "Interpreters" quibble about the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words while the elephant in the room is the fact that no measure of realism need apply. It's already been ruled out of court by the very act of accepting it whole as a sacred text. You may not like the advances in biblical criticism that the last three hundred years has wrought, but to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you can roll back the march of progress with "the right interpretive stance" is sheer folly.

That's your opinion.

(October 24, 2015 at 10:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 24, 2015 at 2:09 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

---

We're not talking "any given text," we're talking about the bible here, supposedly a document which channels the truth of God.  Now there are numerous truths involved in that question.  First, the book contains wholly fictitious events like the Exodus and the global flood.  It's well acknowledged that some of the books in the New Testament are patent forgeries, yet this fact is somehow not supposed to affect the integrity of the text.  And it's clear that the process of choosing what to keep in and what to leave out was an ideologically and politically driven enterprise conducted by men without any real expertise in evaluating texts for authenticity.

The hypothesis that some sort of standard of realism can be used to decipher the "meaning" of this text was thrown under the bus some time ago.  Comparing the opinions about the meaning of the text to a historical reconstruction of the life of a well-documented U.S. president is ludicrous.  You don't have justified opinions; you have a cascade of ad hoc suppositions about how to reconcile obviously fantastical bullshit with seeming historical accounts.  It's worse than radical deconstructionism.  It's pesharim and cognitive dissonance raised to a fine art.  "Interpreters" quibble about the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words while the elephant in the room is the fact that no measure of realism need apply.   It's already been ruled out of court by the very act of accepting it whole as a sacred text.  You may not like the advances in biblical criticism that the last three hundred years has wrought, but to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend you can roll back the march of progress with "the right interpretive stance" is sheer folly.

---

That's your opinion.

Bahahahaha. That's all you've got? What a disappointment.

(October 24, 2015 at 6:55 am)Starvald Demelain Wrote:

(October 21, 2015 at 12:29 pm)Godschild Wrote:  I disagree, some of you have read the Bible but you take to it with a negative attitude, biased against it. Actually I've seen little from you that would make me believe you understand the Bible. 

GC

Translation: 

You don't agree with me, so you can't possibly understand the bible. 

Jesus Jackhammering Christ, GC. 

Wrong! another childish response because you didn't read all my post on this thread, I'm not doing the work for you, just go read, please.

GC