Quote: 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

The alternative is reading it as if it were true and since it is preposterous horseshit that just doesn't work, G-C.

(October 24, 2015 at 11:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 24, 2015 at 10:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That's your opinion.

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

That's all the reply it deserves. You are essentially arguing the interpretation of sacred texts is somehow completely different that any other kind of text for no other reason than that they are sacred texts. It's just a massive example of Special Pleading.

While you attempt to condescend Jor she'll just sneak up behind you with a samurai sword called "Logic" and some nunchucs called "Wit" and kick your ass.

Right

I consider myself quite logical, but I feel like an apprentice watching a master around here sometimes.

In most instances, Jor takes reasonable and nuanced positions. Not in this case. The question at hand is whether some interpretations of the bible are better than others. First, she denies this on the grounds that the bible is a sacred text. She then offers here own interpretations i.e. that it is largely fictitious, contains forgeries, and that the canon was assembled politically. All that may or may not be true. But she cannot escape the fact that by rendering those judgments she has expressed an opinion about how the text should be received. Either some opinions are better than others or not. She’s trying to have it both ways.

I mean... I just make a mess. I'm running in screaming, most of my intended targets have seen me coming a mile off and have hopped it. There's blood everywhere, I'm not sure who I'm killing anymore, and half the neighbourhood gets ruined.

These guys just drop silently from a tree and separate the argument's head from its stupid shoulders and are off into the night before it slides to the ground.

(October 26, 2015 at 11:14 am)ChadWooters Wrote: In most instances, Jor takes reasonable and nuanced positions. Not in this case. The question at hand is whether some interpretations of the bible are better than others. First, she denies this on the grounds that the bible is a sacred text. She then offers here own interpretations i.e. that it is largely fictitious, contains forgeries, and that the canon was assembled politically. All that may or may not be true. But she cannot escape the fact that by rendering those judgments she has expressed an opinion about how the text should be received. Either some opinions are better than others or not. She’s trying to have it both ways.

You seem to be arguing against the literalist interpretation typical of baptists (and to which denomination many of our members formerly belonged) are you not thus arguing that baptists have incorrectly interpreted scripture and are thus not "true christians"?
As for the information regarding forgeries and fictitious content, that is widely documented particularly in archaeology as the text directly contradicts the physical evidence to ~450 BCE.

In some ways yes, I do not favor a literalistic approach to biblical texts; however, I do not disparage those who do although I have no difficulty having a gentle and respectful discussion about it with them. I really do not think there is much disagreement over the essential doctrines as trumpeted by some. Most disputes involve minor points not related to saving grace.

(October 26, 2015 at 11:14 am)ChadWooters Wrote: In most instances, Jor takes reasonable and nuanced positions. Not in this case. The question at hand is whether some interpretations of the bible are better than others. First, she denies this on the grounds that the bible is a sacred text. She then offers here own interpretations i.e. that it is largely fictitious, contains forgeries, and that the canon was assembled politically. All that may or may not be true. But she cannot escape the fact that by rendering those judgments she has expressed an opinion about how the text should be received. Either some opinions are better than others or not. She’s trying to have it both ways.

No I did not. I pointed out that a realistic interpretation of this particular text is ruled out by reality herself. You want to make your ad hoc attempts to rescue the text from interpretive nihilism somehow priviliged. That's a contradiction with the consequence that the text is not literally true, but is claimed to be in some other sense true. It is your inability to raise this other sense as somehow justified above others that renders your belief in better and worse interpretations of the bible in error. As Nietzsche said, "there are no facts, only interpretations." That the exodus didn't occur, that the flood didn't occur, that there are forgeries in the bible, that the assemblage of the book is thoroughly ad hoc - these are facts. They render a historical interpretation of the text untenable. All you have left are arbitrary interpretations. You must purely arbitrarily choose what to treat as fact and which as metaphor or other. That makes your interpretation no better than any other. As long as you hold that the bible is "true," you've forced yourself down an alley of ad hoc interpretation that is demanded by the mismatch between reality and text.

Is the bible true according to you?
Is the account of the flood true?
What is your answer?

A post-structuralist feminist critical theory reading of 'Lord of the Flies' has less support than a more traditional one. Correspondences with a real Piggy and actual conches have little bearing on whether some interpretation of its message and symbolism is better than another. What matters is consistency of the interpretation of the text with the text itself and the circumstances of its authorship. Your replies only reveal the closed-mindedness of atheistic interpretors that demand literalism. In that way you are no better than the fundamentalists you decry.

As for your questions, the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for their purpose as a guide for life and saving faith.