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

I submit you impose your own interpretation - I will say once again, the words either mean what they say or they do not.

Overlaying any assumption or qualification on what is written is interpretation, objectively, dispassionately reading those words, assigning to them no external reference or extracontexual meaning certainly may be done; one merely leaves one's preferences, preconceptions, and prejudices at the flyleaf and proceeds to read. I submit it is not an unwarranted assumption that such may be done, but rather that such precisely is the point, purpose, and method of critical, objective, dispassionate reading.

Magginkat and Cicerone Imposter,

With all due respect

Only the atheist........? Now, who sounds superior

Magginkat and Cicerone Imposter,

With all due respect

Only the atheist........? Now, who sounds superior

Implicator wrote:

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.

No alternate definition or source required: faith cannot be demonstrated to be either rational or logical.

Implicator wrote:

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.

I confuse nothing; faith is purely emotional. Demonstrate that it be not so.

Implicator wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

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.

There ya go - in your own words. Thank you.

Implicator wrote:

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

Irrelevant.

Implicator wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

3) Serves well to illustrate that point

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

I submit your conclusion is in error, and as cited above, refuted by your own word. Faith is emotional, not logical and rational, no matter how emotionally defended.

Magginkat- Good to see you, and Happy New Year!

That article, "An Atheist Manifesto" is marvelous.

Looks identical to me, but I'm an atheist, and definitions by the religious escapes me most times whether it's from the dictionary or the bible.

Intrepid wrote:

It can't be a mistake because you take great pains to point out typos and grammatical errors of others. Therefore, you would never do that yourself.

Typical lack of genuine intrepidity . . . i have never denied i make such errors, and it doesn't bother me that you point them out. I point out others errors in the hope that it will sting, and it usually does--it really gets to you, i notice. Doesn't bother me in the least.

I note that you describe yourself as a minion . . . a minion of whom or what . . . could it be . . . SATAN ? ! ? ! ?

You point out errors in the hope that it will sting?
Man, you are one UNHAPPY person.

Wanda

Why should anyone drop it . . . you have claimed that your imaginary friend superstition is not a superstition, but an act of faith, or a series of acts of faith, as though that were something different. You have been asked to demonstrate that your faith is different than superstition. You have failed to do so.

Therefore, you are peddling superstition.

Wicked Wanda: She was fun in the Penthouse Magazine. I remember her well.

We are superior!

Maggi good to see you. Happy New Year. Big discussion here.

Magginkat Wrote:

Quote:

We are superior!

The reason for my laughter, Magginkat was at how often it seems Christians that post on A2K are accused of expressing or exhibiting a superior attitude.

No one is asking you to accept our faith Magginkat. This is just a forum where opinions, etc., are discussed and exchanged. If you don't like Christianity don't bother putting yourself in the middle of it in these threads.