I love religion!

[tackattack]

---

actually the bible is a work inspired by God, according the religion, and is misinterpretted as often as someone takes another person's conversation out of context and assumes the meaning in today's society. That's why I ascribe to Christianity's key component that all human's are fallible.

So what is (your) right interpretation and how do you go about validating that your interpretation is the right one?

I don't have a right interpretation, just my interpretation which is a right fit for me. I go about validating my interpretation with intuition, logic and trying the stip as much humanity out of the bible as possible.

Your words imply that all religious interpretation is subjective. So how then is it possible at all for you to judge other interpretations as you do in the above?

---

Not all, but most religious interpretation is subjective and changes to include more people, detrimentally to their beliefs. I've tried and researched many different variations within and outside of Christianity, to include none.
I judge other interpretations based off of the level of fufillment gained from actively participating in understanding the universal truths presented using the tools above. It's not to say I have all the answers because I do not. However seeking definition of immaterial truths advances my ability to reason my reality.

[Purple Rabbit]

Not all, but most religious interpretation is subjective.....

This defies all logic. You first said you had no clue if your interpretation was right or not, or words along that line ("I don't have a right interpretation, just my interpretation..."). Now you say you can distinguish between subjective interpretation and objective interpretation. Does not compute! Non sequitur. Does not follow.

...and changes to include more people, detrimentally to their beliefs. I've tried and researched many different variations within and outside of Christianity, to include none.
I judge other interpretations based off of the level of fufillment gained from actively participating in understanding the universal truths presented using the tools above. It's not to say I have all the answers because I do not. However seeking definition of immaterial truths advances my ability to reason my reality.

So you have found no of the shelf interpretation that you liked on the basis of your self-invented criterion, but you can distinguish between subjective interpretation and objective interpretations. That's neat, how do you do that?

[tackattack]

Objective truth would be observable, able to be described, peer-reviewed and lead to the best knowable truth. Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views only see scientific evidence as proof. How can reason (being an intangible construct) then be evidence. All of religion is intangible since religion itself is a construct. It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations. Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something. The fact you use the word God in a sentce actually takes it from your electrical synapses of thought and ascribes a definition to it. The details of that definition are subjective and debatable, but a definition none-the less. Religion is about universally defining the concept of God. If religion would get out of the self-service industry and talk more to people it might appear less subjective to outside observers... must work at some point today.... .
grrrr

[Purple Rabbit]

Objective truth would be observable, able to be described, peer-reviewed and lead to the best knowable truth. Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views only see scientific evidence as proof. How can reason (being an intangible construct) then be evidence. All of religion is intangible since religion itself is a construct. It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations. Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something. The fact you use the word God in a sentce actually takes it from your electrical synapses of thought and ascribes a definition to it. The details of that definition are subjective and debatable, but a definition none-the less. Religion is about universally defining the concept of God. If religion would get out of the self-service industry and talk more to people it might appear less subjective to outside observers... must work at some point today.... .
grrrr

Tell me tackattack are all these words meant as a reply to my question or as diversion? I bluntly put that question to you because I find it somewhat dissapointing that you seem to think I would take it for an answer. You must know I really have liked your inquisitive postings so far but it seems some other thing is creeping in now.

Objective truth, ah that ever elusive treasure of knowledge. According to Kant it (the noumenon) never will be observable, so I don't know how you came to conclude that it is observable?

"Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views", is that the category you had in mind for me dear friend? By now you should know I value more than the material. The atheistic part has nothing to do with what follows ("only see scientific evidence as proof"). And please don't put the distinction of what is tangible and what is intangible on evidence. Mathematics and logic are part of science and they both are intangible yet they constitute proof. 1 + 1= 2 you see?

If all of religion really is only intangible we're surely done here. But that is not what they tell in church don't they?

logic and intuition do not count as observation only as logic and intuition. You cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone.

"Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something." So there is some universal lexicon you have access to? Definitions are words, my friend, human language, and words alone do not necessarily constitute reality. Hell, it's even debatable whether words can get us anyway near truth. As Wittgenstein said "a new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion". But then again, he also said "our greatest stupidities may be very wise".

When you objectify religion it becomes a comparitative study of religions and the most obvious fact it presents is that religion is a subjective experience all over the globe and through all ages.

I don't use the word 'God' in sentences. I only use the word 'god' in sentences because writing in capitals would mean that I know the guy and I won't feign that. See it as my token of respect for truth.

Work? You'd better take a good nap and think things over.

Oh and yes that question. It kind of still stands. So here is it again: How can you distinguish between subjective interpretation and objective interpretations if you have only access to your own subjective judgement?

[ghostlighter]

Great, I'm glad you understand my meaning in the quoted passage. Until I read your reply I didn't realize how important the context of the quoted material was. As far as your interest in Nietzsche, yes, you don't need to necisarilly agree with his ideas to benefit from them. In fact, I recommend you go ahead and disagree with any idea that doesn't immediatly click with you. This critical approach to philosophy is one that Nietzsche himself uses and once I began using it, I never looked back.

I'm glad you are taking in interest in Nietzsche. I might start a thread on the subject of his thought as it is so pertanent to the subject of atheism. I'd like to see if I can get Adrian sucked into the discussion as well because his "moral nihalism" interests me.

Great! If you can take the journey from "Beyond" to "geneology" to "Antichrist" you will have your mind opened to it's limits. It is the philosophical equivelent of taking a large dose of LSD. Just remember not to have a "bad trip"-- this is especially a concern when reading "Beyond". Keep a healthy distance away from the thoughts, don't get too involved. Reading "Beyond" is a lot like a roller-coaster ride. It is the entire movement of ups and downs and loops that comprise the experience. Don't worry if you don't quite understand a particular passage. Don't dwell or get hung up with a certain thing or another. Just move on. The truth is in the entire ride, not any particular part of it.

Peace

[Zen Badger]

[quote='Zen Badger' pid='50527' dateline='1263648027'][hide]
[quote='tackattack' pid='50515' dateline='1263646038']

The fact it is written is implied since it is a book. Men can write, God doesn't that's also assumed. Since interpretation is subjective and God should be personal he probably assumed it would be individual (read as mis) interpreted. That is assuming that God has a consciouness. The machines at the Hershey Company make reese's pieces put people still argue which candy is the bestand how it's made. Me I appreciate the goodness of the end result (Sorry I'm really hungry and craving sweets).

I don't have a right interpretation, just my interpretation which is a right fit for me. I go about validating my interpretation with intuition, logic and trying the stip as much humanity out of the bible as possible.

Awful lot of assumptions in that post Tacka.

Though why God would need to make assumptions when he is All Knowing is a bit strange

wouldn't you think.

But again my point, Why didn't God make the Bible resistant to interpretation.

This is what I mean, no argument, no mistake, no changing! yours truly God.

He is Perfect( it is claimed) wouldn't His Word be as well?

[lukec]

My theory is that the mediums through which God wrote the bible just had the worst memories. Poor guys

[Zen Badger]

My theory is that the mediums through which God wrote the bible just had the worst memories. Poor guys

Or they were trippin'

[KichigaiNeko]

My theory is that the mediums through which God wrote the bible just had the worst memories. Poor guys

Or they were trippin'

Or they were just puny little men things wanting their 15 seconds of fame??

[Tiberius]

I'd like to see if I can get Adrian sucked into the discussion as well because his "moral nihalism" interests me.

How does it interest you?

For me it's a logical position as both an atheist and an agnostic. If there are no higher powers, there cannot possibly be any objective meaning to life, or morality, or existence. Hence my nihilism.