Why did God allow his words to be changed?

[R00tKiT]

You're a moron.  If you're going to accuse someone else of creating a strawman, try not to do so by creating a strawman yourself.  Your words have dick to do with what I wrote.

Have fun waiting.

You cast insults like a child.

You said, verbatim :

But reality has more tricks than scripture has answers for, so while the text may remain fixed, how people interpret and use that text will continue to shift under the text.

The underlying assumption being that scripture is supposed to have answers for any problem in reality. And, being the coward you are, you didn't bother to substantiate this assertion, you just went on with your verbal diarrhea about how religion undermines "what a group of people value".

Keep up the good work.

[Angrboda]

You're a moron.  If you're going to accuse someone else of creating a strawman, try not to do so by creating a strawman yourself.  Your words have dick to do with what I wrote.

Have fun waiting.

You cast insults like a child.

You said, verbatim :

But reality has more tricks than scripture has answers for, so while the text may remain fixed, how people interpret and use that text will continue to shift under the text.

The underlying assumption being that scripture is supposed to have answers for any problem in reality. And, being the coward you are, you didn't bother to substantiate this assertion, you just went on with your verbal diarrhea about how religion undermines "what a group of people value".

Keep up the good work.

It was a figurative usage which in context means that there are more ways for change to circumvent the braking effect of scripture than scripture has braking mechanisms to halt change. That you interpreted it literally only shows that you're an idiot who can't understand context and has all the reading comprehension of a fourth-grader. You have entirely misconstrued the passage. The entire post was about the braking effect of scripture with respect to societal change. The context was bloody fucking obvious. There is only any such underlying assumption inside that brown-colored slurry inside your skull, not in my words or meaning.

Nor did I say that religion undermines what a group of people value.

I will repeat. You're a moron.

[UniverseCaptain]

"God" , haha.

[Spongebob]

But reality has more tricks than scripture has answers for, so while the text may remain fixed, how people interpret and use that text will continue to shift under the text.

The underlying assumption being that scripture is supposed to have answers for any problem in reality. And, being the coward you are, you didn't bother to substantiate this assertion, you just went on with your verbal diarrhea about how religion undermines "what a group of people value".

Seems like the point being made there was it's not possible write down an answer to every problem or concern one is likely to face in life.  Yet this doesn't stop the religious from interpreting the text in such a way as to address just about any concern.

[DocIllinois]

@Spongebob I agree.

Any thinking person will realize that holy books hardly provide a comprehensive set of answers and most especially not those grounded in reality, in my observation.

In my experience, trouble is created when those who glean a comprehensive set of answers from them not only insist that this information inescapably applies to the rest of us, but sometimes provide active resistance to mankind's cultural progress when it refutes a biblical "instruction" or "explanation."

[Astreja]

In my experience, trouble is created when those who glean a comprehensive set of answers from them not only insist that this information inescapably applies to the rest of us, but sometimes provide active resistance to mankind's cultural progress when it refutes a biblical "instruction" or "explanation."

The problem is ultimately rooted in a mindset that insists upon definitive answers and that has a near-zero toleration for provisional answers and ambiguity.  Once they go down that "absolute truth" rabbit hole, they'll defend that turf long after Reality has plowed it up.

What pathetic, shallow children they are.

[no one]

This just in.............. god blames Dominion Voting Systems for all the hullabaloo.

Lindel has the scrolls to prove it.

He will release his findings on Apriluary 32nd.

[vulcanlogician]

In my experience, trouble is created when those who glean a comprehensive set of answers from them not only insist that this information inescapably applies to the rest of us, but sometimes provide active resistance to mankind's cultural progress when it refutes a biblical "instruction" or "explanation."

The problem is ultimately rooted in a mindset that insists upon definitive answers and that has a near-zero toleration for provisional answers and ambiguity.  Once they go down that "absolute truth" rabbit hole, they'll defend that turf long after Reality has plowed it up.

IDK. Plato kind of thought that there was some kind of absolute truth. I think the key difference was that he didn't think we humans had access to it. He thought it required investigation and intellectual work to suss out. And even then, the human mind is only capable of understanding a fraction of it. To Plato there IS ambiguity... and plenty of it. And there needs to be debate from all sides, arguments for/against, and challenges to all ideas in order to learn anything genuine.

What separates fundies and zealots from Plato is that they have "special access" to the absolute truth. It's written in their holy book. It can be summarized on a cheesy pamphlet. And instead of arguments for/against the supposed absolute truth, we get "You better believe or else..."

I dig what you're saying. And I personally agree. But not every absolutist deserves to be thrown on the same shitpile as religious thinkers.

[Astreja]

What separates fundies and zealots from Plato is that they have "special access" to the absolute truth.

And therein lies the critical difference - the hubris of believing that they already possess the truth, rather than merely believing that such a thing is possible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Chances are, if you believe that truth is possible, you also believe that you possess at least some of it. At least as much to state, truthfully, "truth is possible".

The thing that separates fundies and zealots from other claimants to truth are their truth-cases.