Subjectivity of the bible

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

we're talking about people who misinterpret the bible. You're basically saying that there is no misinterpreting what it says, unless you take what it says out of context.

If someone quotes a passage "John 3-16" for instance and says this is proof of God's Omni-benevolence. When it is not, it is the context that will properly frame what the passage indented meaning is. it is then up to the indivisual to incorporate all of the context or to remain with what they want to understand.

The only other option (which is not a biblical misrepresentation) is to say the bible says "X" when in fact it does not. this is fabrication not misrepresentation.

You don't seem to understand what subjective means. Something can be written one way, but mean something totally different to two different people. This is tacitly true.

which again can be clarified with a contextual over view. Unless one simply wishes to remain 'wrong.'

Alright, I decided that I have enough energy today to try to respond to this. You said yourself a little later in your own post that people's morality is governed by the society that they live in. You said that the only reason I think isis is doing something wrong is because I live in a society where we see it as wrong, you're calling my point of view ethnocentric.I forget who said it (I think it was you), but someone said that islamic extremists are actually interpreting their bible correctly, because it says in the Koran that you should kill non believers. That is an explicit example of how the bible (or koran or whatever the fuck you want to call it), can be totally subjective in it's interpretation. It's funny how you basically back up my own point, but then try to spin it as me being ethnocentric.

So they're not mentally ill, but the hundreds of people who commit mass shootings in america, have been stated by president obama himself as mentally ill. Right.

Here's the crux of your problem. You have lost touch with the fact that a person's title or social rank does not enable them to change or become the standard of how the English language is purposed and used. You assume that Obama is, one using the word correctly, and two his use of the word infact covers your own use of the word. When it does not.
How can we know this for sure? It's called a dictionary.
Mental-illness:
1. any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mental-illness

it references psychosis so we look up that word:a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=i...gws_rd=ssl

And then the next word it represents is neurosis:
a relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality.
Which one could then assume a sever neurosis would lead to some confusion with reality.

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ULaO3LL5eI

So then we can ask is Obama using the term correctly. The answer is yes in this instance, because in every example of 'mass shootings' Reality, is dictated by US Law concerning the murder of it's citizens. These guys all believed they had some other authority that allowed them to murder without consequence or were forced/required to take the actions they took.

which on the surface may sound like what the muslims are doing, but they are not.

Why? Because unlike those in whom Obama are referring, Muslims in the middle east/ISIS or the Taliban are not subject to the terms of 'US law' or Western Laws to define 'reality.' What they do may seem crazy to you, but that is only because you believe the laws you live by are the only valid laws on the planet.

When in fact the only thing validating 'western laws/values' is our collective might as a coalition of nations and our collective popular culture which defines our morality. In essence Our might makes our laws/reality right, for all of those under them. Which is a very slippery slope, because in 1930's Germany, Hitler's might made his laws right, until someone mightier challenged and defeated him.

Therefore to say all religious or even all muslims are mentally ill is small minded foolishness. So small infact that most of the time we give it a pass. But, when we begin to think that our laws our current value system is the gold standard and can not ever be challenged then those who think that way (well intentioned or not) step over to that mind set that marched Jews into death camps, and fly planes into buildings. Do not allow the society to suck you up into the same pitfall that consumes those you oppose. That your 'reality' is the ONLY right way to live and all other be damned. Otherwise you become what you profess to hate.

I already addressed this in the last response. 

it can also mean:
change or debase by making errors or unintentional alterations
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...ne+corrupt

Whatever, kind of beside the point.

You're quite cynical, aren't you 
(in response to the words I bolded) I never said that, you're making that up. (in response to the second sentence I bolded) again, I don't think that, you're making that up. I agree that their values are barbaric and they would likely behead me for what I'm saying. That is another way we cool look at them as "mentally ill", judging by the nature of the way the phrase is used. People can call anything mentally ill, especially lgbt people, which is actually what inspired me to make this thread, was seeing the way transgender people are labeled mentally ill, as well as gay people, or strangely, people with fetishes. 

People can and do call anything mentally ill, however it does not mean the term correctly applies.
The word has a definition and that definition has parameters the defines it. If the subject fits those parameters then the term is used correctly. This means in some cases a member of the lgbt community could indeed be correctly identified as mentally ill because of their involvement with any of the things you listed. it all depends on whether or not their reasoning for their involvement satisfies the parameters of the definition. No other inputs or 'feelings' of this word should matter.

People (like you in this thread) do not use words correctly anymore. They use words in accordance to how the rest of society 'feels' about a given word. Your LGBT soap box reasoning being a great example. you can't possibly vindicate ALL of the LGBT community from being mentally ill, you can't even speak for the majority, because the definition of mentally-ill demands a personal evaluation on an individual basis for each and every person who is to be considered apart of the LBGT community. The only way you could speak for everyone is to change All laws/Normality to include what is currently identified as a Psychosis or Neurosis as 'normal.'

Like wise you can't say all religious are mentally ill, unless you could account for every religious person on the planet via an official evaluation to find them Psychotic or severely neurotic..

-or you change the parameters of the word 'normal' to exclude any activity a religious person may take part in that you do not, no matter how that activity currently relates to psychotic or neurotic behavior, thereby allowing you to re-define their religious behavior as being psychotic or Neurotic. (Which is what you've actually had to do to come to your conclusion)

Again, a simple contextual reading of the word in the proper light will clear all misinterpretations.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying about mental illness. I am saying that religiousness itself is a mental illness. The fact that you have, and I quote you in your own words ":a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality." a delusion about reality yourself. You think there is an all powerful presence on our earth, that seems to me to qualify as being out of touch with reality. You have the fucking audacity to say that LGBT people are "correctly identified as mentally ill", then say that we're just using our feelings to dictate our opinions. You know why people get so fucking upset at people who say LGBT people are mentally ill? People get upset because it is such a fucking unfounded claim, you have absolutely no criteria for defining it, you fucking insult a large number of people, including myself for our fucking preferences in sexuality.

Looking past that, you actually validate my point. I was saying that the definition of mental illness is arbitrary and subjective, so it could be applied to "people like me" or anyone for that matter.

As I explained earlier it is not. It has a fixed definition based on 2 parameters which I defined. I then showed that all 3 definition depend on what a society defines as 'reality.' This is the only variable, where the definition of 'mental-illness' can change.

What I further explained is that 'you people' (people who use words incorrectly.) you use words based on their social feel rather than on their definitions and parameters that make up those definitions. This is not the fault of the word , but a non contextual/misinterpretation (per your OP) of the word.

Bold mine 
and I showed why you're wrong.

I was making a analogy to mental illness, but I also was saying that you can easily call a religious person mentally ill. They have an affliction that effects their ability to look at things logically,

logic is not a parameter of mental illness. Again, I point to the definition.

Often times for the mentally ill they are stuck behind strict logic. again the variable being reality, and what defines reality for them. It is the demand of logic that forces a mentally ill person an isis member to shoot up a school shoot up paris, because his corrupt reality, driven by strict logic demands the death of his class mates even if he himself may or may not want to do this act.

 
I fixed what you wrote for you. The fucking unbearable quoting system is fucking up my words and I don't know why.

because everything they think is just a reflection of what some book says,

And if God is real, and as the book says interacts with his followers?

plus their beliefs get altered to mean whatever they interpret the bible to mean. This is another example of how the bible can be interpreted subjectively, and used to support whatever position you have.

not if it is read in context. the bible was written, meaning it has a beginning and a end. therefore has a flow and finite direction to its message. If one reads it as it was written then one can only come to the place the author/ HS intended. If one however skips around and cuts and pastes different verses together from all over the book, then yes you are right, it can be made to say anything. But who can honestly do that with any other book and not be called a fraud?

That's because when you pair whatever stance you have with belief, you automatically are given a free pass to be as ignorant and mindless as you want. It's a huge misnomer, that belief is equal to something deeply important. It's arbitrary, completely undermining to critical thinking.

The same can be true with or without the bible. I would contend that it is far easier to undermind 'critical thinking' without any absolutes in your life. Just look at how without the absolute a dictionary you changed the meaning of a well defined and well established word just so you can 'feel' righteous about speaking up for the LGBT community.. How much critical thought when into that hot bag of mess?

You're asking me if god is real? What kind of rhetorical question is that? You're asking me what would it be like if god was real and interacting with his followers? You're the one making that assumption, so it's up to you to define that. We've already gone over the context thing, I've proven you wrong. Then you talk about the LGBT community again, which I gone over in the previous paragraphs. 

---

My ] key is broken.