Subjectivity of the bible

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Have you ever heard anyone say that the bible has been misinterpreted? Doesn't this seem ironic considering that no one can really claim to have the correct interpretation? It's funny to me how I haven't seen a single person claiming that isis is mentally ill, when they go around doing the exact same thing that hundreds of shooters in America do practically ever day in our country. They even say that religion isn't the problem with isis, that they've interpreted it wrong. This is the focal point of my entire thread, they are interpreting their Koran just like any other religious person does for their religion. Yet people say that they don't have a mental illness, when it's funny to me that no one will point to religion being the mental illness in this case.

You know what else is sad to me? No one seems to see the bizarre sort of arbitrary nature of the diagnosis of mental illness. You'd think that there would be some complex biological formula and explanation for it. There could very well be a complex biological explanation, but on the most basic level, isn't the label itself sort of arbitrary? So I'd say, the general consensus is that a mental illness is something that hinders someone from living a normal life, but how can you say for certain that there's a flaw in a human being? Wouldn't that make us no better than machines, who only serve the purpose of operating in society? So, the concept that religion is a mental illness seems like fair one, but the bias and emotionally driven nature of humans will seem preposterous to them.

I'm using mental illness as an analogy for the behavior of religious people. A part of me believes that religion is in part, a mental illness, but the subjectivity of the word itself is much like nature of human beings itself; just arbitrary words, based off personal biases. It's sad to me that there's no way I could possibly call a religious person mentally ill. You have to use terms that will make sense to them. Religious people have this sort of armor of their own ignorance; ignorance is bliss, as they say. It's so frustrating to me, but I digress. If I haven't stayed on topic for this thread, I'm sorry but there's a lot on my mind that I want to discuss. I'm not trying to argue a point even though I feel like I am on to something here, so please don't necessarily try to start a debate. I would just like to expand on them.

[Longhorn]

I see. And how did that make you feel?

[Minimalist]

The mistake is trying to separate the religious from the political from the cultural with those people.  They have mashed it up into a stew and it is impossible to separate out the strands.  IOW, it doesn't matter if "islam" is violent.  The culture it sprang from is violent and the politicians use that to sustain themselves.

[Cato]

The mistake is trying to separate the religious from the political from the cultural with those people.  They have mashed it up into a stew and it is impossible to separate out the strands.  IOW, it doesn't matter if "islam" is violent.  The culture it sprang from is violent and the politicians use that to sustain themselves.

This is why I cringe each time someone armed with an unlimited supply of willful ignorance registers the apology "it's not Islam" when referencing some attack in particular or organizations such as ISIS or al-Qaeda in general. Wahhabism was a 17th century invention and was almost immediately wed to the political motivations of the House of Saud. 

KSA gave birth to the more radical elements of this tradition when they happily used their oil wealth and made exceptions to Wahhabist conservative doctrine to import western technology and a smidgen of its culture. Some felt betrayed by the political alliances that necessarily resulted from the exchange. By the time you get to the 1970s, there was enough perceived betrayal that the more radical among them started to act independently.

Typically in these conversations, those that attempt to excuse Wahhabism's influence are quick to forget that 'other' Muslims are the focal point of extremist ire. To be sure, Westerners are targeted and attacked for perceived meddling, but this is not the primary motivation for these people.

[Drich]

Have you ever heard anyone say that the bible has been misinterpreted?

This refers to contextual representation of a particular passage. 99 times out of 100 a simple contextual reading is all that is needed for proper interpretation.

Doesn't this seem ironic considering that no one can really claim to have the correct interpretation?

what makes you say that?
Biblical 'misinterpretation' comes when someone takes a verse out of its context and pairs it with another verse to give a value/meaning that was never intended. Again to understand the bible is to simply read it and don't take verses outside of their framed context.
What's so hard about that?
This is something most people don't have to be told not to do when reading a given book. But, because we do not know what the bible says or its meaning, far too often when someone compiles a dozen verse scraps we believe the 'reinterpretation' without question simply because it was framed with the appearence of book chapter and verse.
to which a straight reading will determine what the verses actually say/meant to say.

It's funny to me how I haven't seen a single person claiming that isis is mentally ill, when they go around doing the exact same thing that hundreds of shooters in America do practically ever day in our country. They even say that religion isn't the problem with isis, that they've interpreted it wrong.

No. the news and luke warm Muslims say ISIS is interpenetrating the koran wrong. I've studied it. ISIS is indeed following the path their 'great prophet' has laid out. The religion demand world domination. It allows it one of 3 ways. to sit down and convert people to islam. If they will not be taught/oppose Islam then they must be killed. Or if they are simply weak or indifferent then Muslims are to move in to their land and simply breed out the infidels. They are doing this very thing between the attacks of isis and the displace 'refugees'/immigrants.

This is the focal point of my entire thread, they are interpreting their Koran just like any other religious person does for their religion. Yet people say that they don't have a mental illness, when it's funny to me that no one will point to religion being the mental illness in this case.

they are not mentally ill. they are doing what their religion demands of them.

You know what else is sad to me? No one seems to see the bizarre sort of arbitrary nature of the diagnosis of mental illness. You'd think that there would be some complex biological formula and explanation for it. There could very well be a complex biological explanation, but on the most basic level, isn't the label itself sort of arbitrary? So I'd say, the general consensus is that a mental illness is something that hinders someone from living a normal life, but how can you say for certain that there's a flaw in a human being? Wouldn't that make us no better than machines, who only serve the purpose of operating in society? So, the concept that religion is a mental illness seems like fair one, but the bias and emotionally driven nature of humans will seem preposterous to them.

-or Your defination for mental illness is wrong, Your defination of 'normal' is corrupt, and/or the identification of a 'flawed' human being falsely puts the idea in your head that you are in a position to judge anyone. the problem your having but don't quite get is that you assume that your world view/culture has more 'moral value' than theirs does. It may here, but in their part of the world your 'values' will get your head chopped off by a rusty knife. And the only thing keeping your head on your shoulders at the moment is our might in this part of the world makes what we believe right.

But that all is being challenged isn't it?

I'm using mental illness as an analogy for the behavior of religious people. A part of me believes that religion is in part, a mental illness, but the subjectivity of the word itself is much like nature of human beings itself; just arbitrary words, based off personal biases.
It's sad to me that there's no way I could possibly call a religious person mentally ill. You have to use terms that will make sense to them. Religious people have this sort of armor of their own ignorance; ignorance is bliss, as they say. It's so frustrating to me, but I digress. If I haven't stayed on topic for this thread, I'm sorry but there's a lot on my mind that I want to discuss. I'm not trying to argue a point even though I feel like I am on to something here, so please don't necessarily try to start a debate. I would just like to expand on them.

Cute...
In a religion thread, you call all religious people mentally ill, but you don't actually have the stones to stand behind your words, or even the want or will to be challenged in anyway. "I don't want a debate i just want to expand on.." Your own personal level of douche baggery. Come back when you grow a pair.

What happenes when you and your world view/morality is in the minority, and the new normal is to hunt people like you down force them to worship Alah or die? Remember your definition of 'mental illness' is based on what is 'normal human behaivor.' So would that make you (one who runs from alah) mentally ill.

If you wish to expand on something maybe work on a few absolutes to include in your 'morality' so when the tide of soceity's 'normal/pop-morality' changes, you don't have to accept the wicked changes society says you must make..

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

Drich

Have you ever heard anyone say that the bible has been misinterpreted?

This refers to contextual representation of a particular passage. 99 times out of 100 a simple contextual reading is all that is needed for proper interpretation.

Doesn't this seem ironic considering that no one can really claim to have the correct interpretation?

what makes you say that?
Biblical 'misinterpretation' comes when someone takes a verse out of its context and pairs it with another verse to give a value/meaning that was never intended. Again to understand the bible is to simply read it and don't take verses outside of their framed context.
What's so hard about that?
This is something most people don't have to be told not to do when reading a given book. But, because we do not know what the bible says or its meaning, far too often when someone compiles a dozen verse scraps we believe the 'reinterpretation' without question simply because it was framed with the appearence of book chapter and verse.
to which a straight reading will determine what the verses actually say/meant to say.

We're not talking about me taking things out of context. We're talking about people who accuse others of misinterpreting the bible. They're the ones who are looking at the context, 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. 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.

It's funny to me how I haven't seen a single person claiming that isis is mentally ill, when they go around doing the exact same thing that hundreds of shooters in America do practically ever day in our country. They even say that religion isn't the problem with isis, that they've interpreted it wrong.

No. the news and luke warm Muslims say ISIS is interpenetrating the koran wrong. I've studied it. ISIS is indeed following the path their 'great prophet' has laid out. The religion demand world domination. It allows it one of 3 ways. to sit down and convert people to islam. If they will not be taught/oppose Islam then they must be killed. Or if they are simply weak or indifferent then Muslims are to move in to their land and simply breed out the infidels. They are doing this very thing between the attacks of isis and the displace 'refugees'/immigrants.

Hmm, so religion is having a negative effect on the world. You don't say 

This is the focal point of my entire thread, they are interpreting their Koran just like any other religious person does for their religion. Yet people say that they don't have a mental illness, when it's funny to me that no one will point to religion being the mental illness in this case.

they are not mentally ill. they are doing what their religion demands of them.

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. I still don't see the concrete difference between someone who's mentally ill and an Islamic extremist. That is beside the point though, because I was saying the definition of mental illness is arbitrary and could easily be applied to whatever suits the agenda of whoever arbitrates the term.

You know what else is sad to me? No one seems to see the bizarre sort of arbitrary nature of the diagnosis of mental illness. You'd think that there would be some complex biological formula and explanation for it. There could very well be a complex biological explanation, but on the most basic level, isn't the label itself sort of arbitrary? So I'd say, the general consensus is that a mental illness is something that hinders someone from living a normal life, but how can you say for certain that there's a flaw in a human being? Wouldn't that make us no better than machines, who only serve the purpose of operating in society? So, the concept that religion is a mental illness seems like fair one, but the bias and emotionally driven nature of humans will seem preposterous to them.

-or Your defination for mental illness is wrong, Your defination of 'normal' is corrupt, and/or the identification of a 'flawed' human being falsely puts the idea in your head that you are in a position to judge anyone. the problem your having but don't quite get is that you assume that your world view/culture has more 'moral value' than theirs does. It may here, but in their part of the world your 'values' will get your head chopped off by a rusty knife. And the only thing keeping your head on your shoulders at the moment is our might in this part of the world makes what we believe right.

But that all is being challenged isn't it?

You realize the word corrupt means dishonest, right? I'm not being dishonest, I'm saying what I honestly think. 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. 

I'm using mental illness as an analogy for the behavior of religious people. A part of me believes that religion is in part, a mental illness, but the subjectivity of the word itself is much like nature of human beings itself; just arbitrary words, based off personal biases.
It's sad to me that there's no way I could possibly call a religious person mentally ill. You have to use terms that will make sense to them. Religious people have this sort of armor of their own ignorance; ignorance is bliss, as they say. It's so frustrating to me, but I digress. If I haven't stayed on topic for this thread, I'm sorry but there's a lot on my mind that I want to discuss. I'm not trying to argue a point even though I feel like I am on to something here, so please don't necessarily try to start a debate. I would just like to expand on them.

Cute...
In a religion thread, you call all religious people mentally ill, but you don't actually have the stones to stand behind your words, or even the want or will to be challenged in anyway. "I don't want a debate i just want to expand on.." Your own personal level of douche baggery. Come back when you grow a pair.

What happenes when you and your world view/morality is in the minority, and the new normal is to hunt people like you down force them to worship Alah or die? Remember your definition of 'mental illness' is based on what is 'normal human behaivor.' So would that make you (one who runs from alah) mentally ill.

If you wish to expand on something maybe work on a few absolutes to include in your 'morality' so when the tide of soceity's 'normal/pop-morality' changes, you don't have to accept the wicked changes society says you must make..

Oh, so you're trying to sway me with words like douche bag. 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. 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, because everything they think is just a reflection of what some book says, 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. 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.

[ignoramus]

Guys, is there a democracy whose main religion is Islam?
If not, can someone explain to me why not?

Must a democracy allow separation of church and state?

[SofaKingHigh]

Indonesia, Turkey....although Turkey is veering away these days.

[Drich]

Guys, is there a democracy whose main religion is Islam?
If not, can someone explain to me why not?

Must a democracy allow separation of church and state?

Iraq before ISIS after Hussein was also considered a democracy (where people voted under duress)

[Minimalist]

Iraq - regardless of ISIS - votes according to whatever sect they belong too.  It took centuries for concepts like democracy to mature in the west.  George Fucking Bush and his Democracy Dust aside, there is no magic bullet to get these people out  of the 12th fucking century.