Subjectivity of the bible

[Drich]

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.

That is the correct usage of the word.

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.

But again, ONLY IF the reader is not willing to apply whole contextual instruction given by the Koran. Which is what a 'moderate' muslim must do to remain moderate. As I said before a full reading and application of the Koran like the bible only produces one type of believer. (albeit on opposite ends of the spectrum.) to be anywhere in the middle or to the other extreme in either case means one has to ignore a contextual reading of their holy Scripture.

It's funny how you basically back up my own point, but then try to spin it as me being ethnocentric.

No, your point is that anyone who reads the bible or Koran can come up with their own interpretation. I am saying unless that person is willing to suspend or flat out ignore/misrepresent what has been written their can only be one out come. The problem is, very few people who have their own interpretation have indeed read the bible or Koran with the idea of only applying what it says. People like that tend to read only looking for passages that supports their beliefs. That is why so many of them cobble together cherry picked verses to build a single doctrine.

As far as you having been identified as an ethnocentric individual, that has nothing to do with how people read the bible. You have been identified as ethnocentric because your 'morals' have been decided by the pop culture you are apart of. This is further confirmed by the fact that you do not seem to disagree with anything 'society' has deemed moral, eg. Homosexuality, Abortion, slavery ect.. (you guys all were cut from the same cookie cutter.) Why do you not question any of thing society tells you is right or wrong?? Do you foolishly believe that everything western society is indeed right is truly right?

No, you do not question anything Because nothing in your system of values and morality that transcends the power you have give popculture or it's morality. You have no absolutes. Only what culture teaches you. So without anything absolute in your life what makes you think you would not have been a hitler youth if born under 1930's german culture? Or fought for slavery in the south? or rounded up American Indians and put them in the death camps of their day?

Again nothing about you objects to whatever 'rules' you adopted from pop culture. So it stands to reason that if you have adopted absolutely everything pop culture serves up without objection then your actions would most likely be the same if you simply grew up in a different culture.. Meaning you would simply soak up whatever 'morality' society put infront of you like for instance those in the Islamic state. And the kicker is.. if you say "nut-huh, I would still hold to the values I do now." Ask yourself where would those 'values' you have now would have come from? Because nothing you believe now is an absolute/founded in anything except this very culture from this specific time period.

That is why I identified you as ethnocentric. Nothing about you says that your values go any deeper than what popular culture demands. Which again has nothing to do with how people read the bible or Koran

I already addressed this in the last response. 

Actually you tried to dismiss everything I said in your last response without having to address anything. I my last response I made it a little harder for you to try and dodge.

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.

Then why did you try and correct my usage of the term to begin with?

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.

Seriously? Do you truly not understand that your 'reality' is NOT what the universe revolves around? That after everything I have said and shown you, that 'reality' is a subjective term? That your 'reality' is indeed just as trivial as that of a Nazi war criminal? That your 'reality' is based on nothing more than your generation's version of pop morality? One that has little more standing in 'reality' simply because it is what people want to believe as of 11/23/15. Do you not understand that in a couple of decades what you believe to be right and wrong now will be out of date? that thing you think are wrong today will be acceptable then? Unless you have some moral absolute somewhere in your life. "reality" is constantly changing. therefore the definition of mental ill-ness is also constantly changing UNLESS One has absolutles that do not ever Change.

Now granted Even if you do have absolutes you find yourself in the position of being in a position where the culture changes, and because you do not identify with the culture for your morality, you maybe identified as "mentally-ill" when some douche wrongly assumes that everything he believes is the only valid version of 'normal/reality' on the planet. Which if you are not influenced by 'peer-pressure' you can dismiss his ranting's to the pot calling the kettle black. (A retard calling you retarded.)

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?

What a intellectually dishonest leftist move that was. Take a look at what I actually said.

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.

No, 'smarty.' I did indeed define the term clinically, and simply pointed out the obvious. In that you can not say that all members of the LBTG community are NOT mentally ill unless you are willing to change the meaning of 'reality/normal' for every single member on a person my person basis. -OR You evaluate everyone honestly and found then to be free from mental illness.

If However you lock the terms of 'reality and normal' to any set standard then ultimately someone (a rather large number) despite the sexual orientation will indeed be found mentally ill.

And yes this also means there are going to be quite a few mentally members of the TGBL community who will indeed be found to be mentally defective. As with all other walks of life and sexual orientation. To say the GLBT community is completely free of mental illness is leftist propaganda, that reeks of lies and political jockeying (Stuff soft closed minds eat up, when they are taught to accept pop morality without question or any fore thought)

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.

How about showing me something with a little more validation that your strongly worded 'nut-huh.'

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.

Actually you did not 'fix' anything. You simply created a straw man. Meaning you took my argument and changed it so as to represent what you can defend.

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

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?
[/quote]

You're asking me if god is real?

Are you still in high school? If so I can turn down the 'complexity' of what I am saying so as not to lose you.
It's not a question I am expecting you to answer correctly. It is a question that I answer my self. How can you tell? Because in the rest of the paragraph I build a point off of the answer I was expecting in that question.

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.

And I did. The answer being God is real, and He does indeed interact with his follwers.. Again if you are thrown off by such "complex" rhetorical questions, then I don't have to use them.

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.

Uh, no. Not even close. The only thing you've proven is that you disagree a lot, you don't seem to understand how rhetorical questions work, and you haven't learned to question the foundations of your own morality.. aside from that your big move to 'prove me wrong' seems to be limited to a straw man you built stating that 'I believe all gblt's are mentally ill.' and that somehow everything else I have to say can be 'proven wrong' by your disagreement with a lie you told concerning my position...

So do you want to try again, or are you good with your failure so far?