[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.

[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.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

All of the people here on this site will without fail have different interpretations of the bible, no exceptions, but that doesn't mean any one of you would be wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't all describe yourself as being a Christian, you'd describe yourself as the only Christian.

Simply untrue. No Tue Christian™ interpretatifies the Bible(KJV1611). We read it as written.

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

If you can find where ANY True Christian™ has interpetated the Bible(KJV1611) I will donate $50 to a God hating charity of your choice.

YIC

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

If Jesus was a real person and not a figure created as an ideal I'd assume the carpenter did not write the bible.

Who here argues otherwise? There is a difference between directly writing the Bible and inspiring it, and God did not need to do the former to do the latter.

As any Christian would certainly understand, if the lord is truly omnipotent then it stands to reason that any words written by a mortal to describe him would fail to truly grasp the true meaning of actions.

We already know the following from the Bible:

Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV: 8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Nonetheless, since with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26), it is possible for God to give a clear revelation of whatever we need to know about Him.

Unless every person here is reading the original source in its Latin form while being completely fluent in both the language and the context in which it was written there is a nonexistent probability that they will all derive the same conclusions as to the messages contained within the bible.

I have yet to hear anyone say that we have to read Voprosy teorii plazmy in the original Russian to understand plasma physics. If that's the case for something as obscure as plasma physics, why do we have to read a revelation in the original Hebrew and Greek to understand a revelation meant for rank-and-file humanity? How hard is it to agree on the correct meaning of something like "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15)?

If there are situations where two of the messages conflict, who is to decide which is the more pressing?

Until you can give us an example of two of the messages that conflict, your question is moot.

That's why Islam has different groups who follow their text in different ways. This is also true of modern Christian groups, there are many groups who believe themselves to be the true believers while differing in their interpretations.

Of what concern is it to us what adherents of false religions like Islam and liberal false Christianity do?

[Didymus Much]

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?...

Of course I'm not going to agree with your absolute. I never do.

...Unless every person here is reading the original source in its Latin form...

Oh, for fuck's sake.

...That's why Islam has different groups who follow their text in different ways...

Wrong again. The sects in Islam accept different hadiths as genuine or not.

There is only one Bible.

Now, before you go all "but muh different versions (Douay-Rheims vs. NASB, for example)", I'm throwing a false equivalency flag on that play. The different Bible versions vary mostly in choice of specific words or phrases, but all tell the same story. The hadiths take the Qu'ran and mangle it, stretching Mu'hammed's supposed teachings beyond recognition due to varying, alienated authorship, and due to war and politics the two main sides will never re-unite despite seemingly (from the outside) sharing the identical faith.

...This is also true of modern Christian groups, there are many groups who believe themselves to be the true believers while differing in their interpretations.

Yes, but we're not dealing with "many groups" here. We're dealing with one, that uses the KJV, which they have reasons to believe is the sole and unerring word of God.

And until you bother to read it (and anything else you'd like to voice an opinion on), please shut your fat piehole, you're embarrassing yourself.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

My statement of the universal truths pertains specifically to the point in time at which the bible was written,

Hello again, Not Brad.


Any "truths" written specifically for the point in time at which they have been written are not universal.

that such a text would serve as a guidebook to life for its followers is a given and as such I'd assume that a great deal of the ideals put forward in the text are a representation of its time more so than a representation of what Jesus or God wants.

OK, then. So now your position is that the Bible is, for the most part, just a collection of random ramblings that are neither trustworthy nor universal?


Just trying to understand where do you stand on the subject now.

If Jesus was a real person

Oh yes! I was asking you to prove that before making statements about Him being the Son of God. I see you did not do your homework.


That reminds me, before that, I was asking you for proof of existence of a Creator, and you missed that assignment as well.

and not a figure created as an ideal I'd assume the carpenter did not write the bible.

That's cute, but if you read the Bible you wouldn't need to assume it.

And I know that the interpretations of an individual are always grounded in their experiences, as can be seen by such events as the Cargo Cults of the Pacific Islanders, they attempted to build pseudo airstrips for one reason or another to mimic the military bases in hopes of some end result.

The difference being that people doing the cargo cults were witnesses of a technically advanced civilization and were reacting to that encounter in the most rational way they could.


In contrast, Christian religion requires believing in a series of highly unlikely events that supposedly have taken place thousands of years ago but have not been corroborated by science, archaeology, nor historical non-Christian sources.


You tell me, who looks more gullible in this scenario.

As any Christian would certainly understand, if the lord is truly omnipotent then it stands to reason that any words written by a mortal to describe him would fail to truly grasp the true meaning of actions.

So?


If you have read the Bible you would have known that it does not describe God in that much detail. What we learn about God the most is His affinity towards punishing people for petty offenses. He is cruel and vindictive, that we know for sure. Nonetheless, God's nature is not the central issue of the Bible.

All of the people here on this site will without fail have different interpretations of the bible, no exceptions,

Well, this particular group fails within the fundamental Christianity, which sees interpretations as wrong and sticks to a literal reading of the Bible instead. Before you act all surprised, let me reassure you that they are not the only Christian group that reads the Bible literally. There are many more fundamental Christians in the world than you think.

but that doesn't mean any one of you would be wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't all describe yourself as being a Christian, you'd describe yourself as the only Christian.

Please, in your next reply try to shed a little bit of that postmodernist shell and try to actually read what I wrote instead of going through interpretations that you like.



P.S.:
Oh, and the Bible has not been written in Latin. If you have questions about reading the original Hebrew and Greek text, you can always ask Pim Pendergrast or Elmer White for assistance.


P.P.S.:
You know, you really could cure a lot of your ignorance just by reading the Bible for yourself.

[TheOneWhoIsNotBrad]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

And from that, all else ignored. Read the Bible, and learn what you're talking about.

Please.


Grounded in as much fact as your above.

Stop assuming, and learn.

Do you think that every single person here puts the same stock in each verse, and takes home the same meaning from every book? Its really simple actually, and is a concept called The Death of the Author which I find to be pretty ironic given the context. Unless every person here is reading the original source in its Latin form while being completely fluent in both the language and the context in which it was written there is a nonexistent probability that they will all derive the same conclusions as to the messages contained within the bible. But that's a gross oversimplification of the issue. 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. This is also true of modern Christian groups, there are many groups who believe themselves to be the true believers while differing in their interpretations.

[Didymus Much]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

...I'd assume...

And from that, all else ignored. Read the Bible, and learn what you're talking about.

Please.

...All of the people here on this site will without fail have different interpretations of the bible...

Grounded in as much fact as your above.

Stop assuming, and learn.

[TheOneWhoIsNotBrad]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

~~snip~~

My statement of the universal truths pertains specifically to the point in time at which the bible was written, that such a text would serve as a guidebook to life for its followers is a given and as such I'd assume that a great deal of the ideals put forward in the text are a representation of its time more so than a representation of what Jesus or God wants. If Jesus was a real person and not a figure created as an ideal I'd assume the carpenter did not write the bible. And I know that the interpretations of an individual are always grounded in their experiences, as can be seen by such events as the Cargo Cults of the Pacific Islanders, they attempted to build pseudo airstrips for one reason or another to mimic the military bases in hopes of some end result. As any Christian would certainly understand, if the lord is truly omnipotent then it stands to reason that any words written by a mortal to describe him would fail to truly grasp the true meaning of actions. All of the people here on this site will without fail have different interpretations of the bible, no exceptions, but that doesn't mean any one of you would be wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't all describe yourself as being a Christian, you'd describe yourself as the only Christian.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Well, the thing is I personally have only read through parts of Genesis before putting it down.

Hello again, Not Brad, and thank you for your reply.


Have you ever heard about the dangers of judging a book by its cover? Well, by reading just a small bit of the Bible and then making complex judgments about its contents as a whole, you are not that different from such people.

By the statements I made, I meant that the ideals and messages within the bible were relative to their own time and place in history.

Wait, I thought you said that the Bible contained universal truths?


Where was it... oh, here:

My personal views on the matter have been that the words given within the bible were an interpretation of universal truths that existed at the time of its inception. These serving as guideposts for those of the time to follow a worthwhile and meaningful path towards lifelong fulfillment.

Do you see a contradiction between these two statements you made?

I like some of the 10 commandments, at least the ones pertaining to living a moral and balanced life.

By what criteria do you pick and choose which of the 10 Commandments to accept and which to reject? Aren't the 10 Commandments supposed to be the most universal part of the supposed universal truths of the Bible?

But mostly I've liked the acceptance and friendliness most of the(liberal) Christians I've ever interacted with.

Trust me: most of them have not read the Bible, either, so they are not the best source regarding Christianity.

Honestly I don't necessarily believe for certain that Jesus was or was not God's son,

Hold your horses. Before we even get to this part, you would have to demonstrate first that Jesus actually existed - citing relevant and trustworthy historical sources. Hint: it will be a more difficult task than you think.

but I do think that there are some components of the bible that contributed positively towards building the society we have today.

Which of the Biblical values do you see as most important in this regard - xenophobia, misogyny, or homophobia?


Nonetheless, I see your point. Biblical values have certainly attributed to trimming human population through religious wars, and they also definitely attributed to the prosperity of Europe through exploitation of native people in its many colonies. So yes, sure, from the point of view of white people, the contributions of the Biblical values could have been more positive than negative.


...Not so much if you ask for the perspective of an indigenous person, be it from the Americas, Africa, Australia, or parts of Asia.

Obviously those who wrote the bible, whoever they were, would have been limited to their own understanding of acceptable practices and cultural elements.

So we are back again to the problem of universal truths of the Bible - now you seem to be suggesting that there are none?

In all honesty I'm of the purview that there were almost never any true believers in the whole of the bible, but rather that those who proclaimed themselves to be christian took away from the book what they were looking for or wanted to hear anyways.

Well, if you stay around and read what the members of this lovely community wrote, you will notice that they do stick to 100% of the Bible. Guaranteed!

That's why I'm in the murkiness, because my values reflect the values of my parents who did go to church, and align with the general trend of people that call themselves Christians.

That is great that you had decent parents. However, let me assure that the fact they were or are good people has nothing to do with their religion or lack thereof.

[James Hutchins]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Welcome Brad! I knew a fellow named Brad back in my formative years at boarding school. He raped me repeatedly over the course of several years. I can still remember the sensation of being rectally penetrated for the first time by Brad. As a mere child, I grew to think that all people named 'Brad' were anally fixated.
You seem to be obsessed with the name of out little HOA, 'Landover'. The inhabitants on the other hand, only care about what God wants. Not themselves, not anyone else. Just Jesus.

I cannot believe you made such a thread on the day that God spent being tortured by the joos!

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

it becomes a dirty blonde

Please clean it

EVERY hair is is of the upmost importance to Jesus. Even more so than tiny little birds, He REALLY CARES

Luke 12:7 - But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows

YIC

[Faith_Machine]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hello Brad,

Self-awareness is a hippie new age thing. It's not actually something you should praise in others, nor cultivate in yourself.


How about being Jesus-aware instead?

[Didymus Much]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

...Well, the thing is I personally have only read through parts of Genesis before putting it down...

Why should the True Christians™ listen to you, when you won't do them the courtesy of familiarizing yourself with their beliefs?

...mostly I've liked the acceptance and friendliness most of the(liberal) Christians I've ever interacted with...

READ THE BIBLE, then you'll know just how "Christian" they are. Spoiler: they aren't, at all, they just want the "respectable" veneer and for someone to reassure them that they're "good" people, even at the price of hypocrisy.

...but I do think that there are some components of the bible that contributed positively towards building the society we have today...

I'm tempted to ask, "Such as?", but realize I'd be wasting my time, due to you NOT KNOWING WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS.

...But you are correct, I have never made the concerted effort to finish reading the bible...

66 books in the KJV, read two a day, take a little over an hour on average, and you'll be done in a month.

Do it, cure your ignorance.

At the very least, stop spreading it.

[TheOneWhoIsNotBrad]

Re: New face here(probably-agnostic)

Hello Mr. Brad. I have a simple question for you: what color is your hair?

Well if you're curious, its a dark blonde during the winter(due to a lack of sun exposure during the cold months) and then it becomes a dirty blonde during the summer when I spend lots of time working in the sun.