Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

Neo, take a nerve pill . . . you've got a gall to label anyone else hard headed . . . come on, Bubba, quote me some more of your ludicrous scripture, then leap to the exegesis, as it is never clear that what you quote means unequivocably what you allege it means . . .

Can the Joe sixpack horseshit, too, it got old about the second time you used it.

revel,
Moving on sounds like a wonderful idea!

To copy post links click on the post number in the timestamp of the post. Your post above is 1758316. Wait for the post to load in your browser than copy the URL from your browser window and paste it into the post you are writing.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1758316#1758316

Implicator wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator, I return yet again to the point of interpretation.

Actually, I really wish you would return to the prior point I made where I provided the definition of the term "interpret", and showed why it is that you interpret the Bible just like the rest of us. Is there a problem with the definition I provided? Do you think the definition does not apply to what you do when you evaluate what the Bible is saying? Or are you just no longer interested in discussing the original issue I took with you in this thread?

Whether you choose to acknowledge and accept it or not, the original issue is that a text requiring interpretation in order to reveal the meaning of what was written is prima facie evidence that what was written was not written to be taken literally, but rather that it requires interpretation to be understood.

Either the words mean what the words mean as written and as laid out, or they do not.

And again you rely on the exclusively internal, circularly referential validation of your proposition as existant wholly and only within its own canon.

Here's a challenge for you; validy differentiate between "Faith" and "Superstition". Mind you, that "VALIDLY" qualifier is the kicker; you may not use theistic doctrine, dogma, or canon to do so, as to employ such perforce entails the fallacy of petitio principii, thereby insurmountably invalidating any argument thus based.

I submit further, Implicator, that the definitions you cite in no way differentiate the two; the definitions are wholly interchangeable, applicable equally each to either word.

faith n
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

su•per•sti•tion n
- A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

I need demonstrate nothing; faith is emotional, not rational, therefore it is irrational. That it be comforting to some, and passionately defended and promoted, yet be insucceptable to dispassionate, objective, logical, external validation serves well to illustrate that point.

That it be comforting to some, and passionately defended and promoted, yet be insucceptable to dispassionate, objective, logical, external validation serves well to illustrate that point.

Implicator wrote:

faith n
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

su•per•sti•tion n
- A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

Putting aside the multiple definitions of each word, which don't apply here, the above two definitions seem to be virtually identical, though differently phrased.

The primary difference in the two terms to me is that superstition carries the implication of irrationality a bit more strongly than simple faith. Although, if you start drilling down in the definition of "irrational" it basically becomes a redundant term to lack of logic and reason (which are already covered in the definition of faith).

While the literal definitions are virtually identical, each term carries an inference which is slightly different. Faith being a kind of haughty philosophy which allows one to escape the requirements of rational justification, and superstition being a slightly pejorative expression of the same thing.

Just my impression.

timberlandko wrote:

I need demonstrate nothing; faith is emotional, not rational, therefore it is irrational. That it be comforting to some, and passionately defended and promoted, yet be insucceptable to dispassionate, objective, logical, external validation serves well to illustrate that point.

The definition I provided neither states that faith is emotional, nor that it is irrational, therefore such comments are nothing more than a narrative as to your personal and subjective impression of faith. Please provide an alternate definition (with your source), or show how the existing definitions lead to the conclusions you assert.

timberlandko wrote:

That it be comforting to some, and passionately defended and promoted, yet be insucceptable to dispassionate, objective, logical, external validation serves well to illustrate that point.

Let's break down the list and see what is illustrated by each item you have listed.

1) comforting, passionately defended and promoted

You confuse the cart and the horse. These may be actions that arise from faith, but they do not logically entail that faith itself is either emotional or irrational. For example, faith may lead to feelings of comfort, but that does not mean that faith itself is emotional. Many find comfort in the scientific method, but that does not necessitate that science itself is emotional.

2) Insucceptable to dispassionate, objective, logical, external validation

Faith (by definition) is not susceptible to any type of validation, at least not in the sense of a linear proof. That is obvious based on the definition of what faith it.

That some may be passionate about their faith does not necessitate that faith itself is passionate (some may have faith without passion.)

3) Serves well to illustrate that point

Not at all ... your conclusion does not follow.

I