[MitzaLizalor]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Originally Posted by Didymus Much
I'll start:

Hey there alt-Brad, how do you think the intro's going? I'm having difficulty making out your av., is it a dwarf sitting on a throne with King Neptune trident pennants and a one armed scoliotic perched on his shoulders? If it is a throne. It could be something else. Or an elf on a throne/tridents/amputee/hunchback as I say it's difficult to make out.

So I thought I'd continue on from the "moral compass" addition [in the avatar competition] and add either some arm(s) or some legs.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Do you think that every single person here puts the same stock in each verse, and takes home the same meaning from every book?

People in a relationship with Jesus Christ necessarily understand The Bible because although perhaps "the author" communicated (with us) through text from antiquity (obviously God was in direct communication with historical figures such as Moses or Ezekiel at the time) that is no longer necessary; what the ancients could only hope for is now the reality in Christ.

II Corinthians 3:12-14 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Its really simple actually, and is a concept called The Death of the Author which I find to be pretty ironic given the context.

What would happen if the secular analysis of Roland Barthes were applied to original Bible sources? First some historical context (you will already know this) the 19th century philologist Friedrich Nietzsche had proclaimed a post-Enlightenment death of God. This paved the way for 20th century French linguists to foment abstractions where words had no meaning and therefore, according to them, words about God have no meaning. Instead they are like signals, the old beacons being a good example. High on hills, unobscured by intervening smaller hills, beacons would be lit. The birth of a prince, the death of a king, victory or defeat in battle, what the fire beacon signified depended on context: on what it was expected to mean.

In the case of literature problems arise. Protagonists themselves are unable to speak except through the minds of authors. But if they took on flesh, set pen to paper, what happens to the authors? Claims that protagonists are authors in abstract form, exploring inner landscapes having meaning only to the authors themselves, meant that no direct communication was possible at all. Nietzsche's "God" never existed and could never take on flesh.

But God did. take on flesh. For Roland Barthes that presents a problem. Having deconstructed literature to the point of meaninglessness.—.other than for its words to signify whatever you'd fancied.—.his remote imitation of abstractions themselves no more than a tissue of signs renders "deciphering" a text as useless as it is impossible! With the author dead, how can there be an author's mind?

I Corinthians 2:14-16 The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Who determines what components of the bible outweigh others? If there are situations where two of the messages conflict, who is to decide which is the more pressing? That's why Islam has different groups who follow their text in different ways.

When lighting those beacons, it's important to know what message is being communicated. "The Battle Is Won!" alone would be insufficient. By which side? Or again, if one castle thought the signal meant "A Prince Is Born!" so all got drunk while next door it meant "Enemy Advancing, Prepare The Molten Lead!!" all sorts of things could go wrong. In neither case however would Islam follow its text in different ways due to conflicting "signals" from words in the Bible.

O.P. seems to have faded recently but raised this point which was quite useful. Applying secular analysis shows that Biblical protagonists are real (not strata in the authors’ minds) because when the priestly authors passed away, Christ remained. Many minds would produce conflict but there is only one mind among Christians. That is revealed even by atheistic semioticians but they're so one-eyed they simply can't see it. I've updated the competition avatar to a square format of 256px allowing space for some arms. Simply drag to desktop and find some appropriate limbs.