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

talk72000 wrote:

I like to tweak them with bobble quotes that are inconsistent with their views. I realized long ago it was useless using philosophical terms to argue with them. You gotto speak their lingo and I do know a bit about the bobble as I actually read it from Genesis to Revelation. I just do it for laughs.

Well, at least you are more honest than some others.

0 Replies

Some folks just find it hard to deal with having their views, perceptions, and positions challenged - prolly has something to do with faith :wink:

0 Replies

Magginkat Wrote:

Quote:

Gosh, what a warm Christian welcome Momma. Now why on earth would I suddenly get the feeling that you are no angel?!

Strange.... I must have missed something. I didn't see anything at the start of this thread that required one to "like Christianity", yet here you are calling yourself an angel and demanding that I "like Christianity" in order to participate.

Now, tell me Momma..... doesn't that sound a whole lot superior even to you?

Actually, Magginkat, my userid is one I use for everything. It has to do with an organization I run.

Right, you yourself when posting that article made some comment about Christians coming running with a blood curdling scream. So, when I do make a comment, without screaming by the way, I get that old "oh my, how Christian you are" line. Rolling Eyes

Since I haven't had contact with you before that I know of let me tell you this. Christian doesn't mean doormat. Christian doesn't mean stupid.

It's fine for you to endorse an article stating the superiority of an atheist and then even say you are superior (but I thought you were joking at first) and then you come back at me with this post Question

I said no such thing that you had to like Christianity. I told you that no one was asking you to accept our faith and this was just a forum. If you don't like Christianity I don't see the point of engaging in discussions about it is all.

I demanded nothing. I told you why I laughed at that article. I AM NOT superior.

0 Replies

timberlandko Wrote:

Quote:

Some folks just find it hard to deal with having their views, perceptions, and positions challenged - prolly has something to do with faith

No, actually it has everything to do with someone accusing someone of something they are guilty of themselves. Goes both ways.

Atheists....Your Life is Pointless ~ Remember that? You guys didn't like it, right? Well, I don't like what that article says. So what? I made comments on it.

I did not attack Magginkat. I just explained how I felt about it. I had just found humor in it all. :wink:

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

Can you believe it? I wander in here to check things out for the New Year and immediately walk into religious discussions! I live in the heart of the Bible thumping Bible belt and that places me in the middle of the religious insanity that seems to be spewing from the very pores of the rabid right. It is enough to gag a maggot at times.

I doubt that I will stick around very long in this one since I have very little patience these days with those who choose to live in a world of make believe.

You unsuspectingly stroll into the Spirituality and Religion section of a webforum, and what do you find if not an on topic discussion? The horror.

I'm pretty much with momma on this one, you're not required to like anything but the fray, but if you find that unpleasant you are best advised to spend your time elsewhere.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

talk72000 wrote:
Maggi good to see you. Happy New Year. Big discussion here.

Happy New Year Talk.....

Can you believe it? I wander in here to check things out for the New Year and immediately walk into religious discussions!.

Oh My Gosh! Imagine that! It IS a religion forum. how 'bout that? Laughing

Wanda

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

I have no need to demonstrate it as rational or logical. You claimed it was irrational, and have not demonstrated it to be so. It is a fairly open and closed case at this point.

What is open and closed is that you have no case; in no way can faith be proven to be rational. As previously stipulated, faith is succeptible to no proof.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:

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

Don't be silly, I have no such burden.

Forensically, yes you have. The validity of the proposition you champion has been challenged. For your proposition to stand, its validity must be demonstrated. It is your assertion faith and superstion be not undifferentiable. Demonstrate that to be the case.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
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.

You'll need to be a bit more specific. You seem to think I have demonstrated your point, but since there is nothing in what I said that entails emotion or lack of logic, you will need to try to draw the connection you seem to be seeing.

As mentioned above, and as you say, faith is succeptable to no validation. I need draw no connection; that a religionist would refuse to acknowledge or cannot see the connection is itself confirmation of the point made.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:
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.

Highly relevant - it refutes your implication that emotion as a by product indicates emotion as a necessary integral.

Poppycock - no such implication was offered. You're interpreting - overlaying your preconceptions.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:
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.

See my reply above re: drawing the connection.

I

Its not atypical that a religionist would persist in circular argument; it rather is to be expected. The manner in which you present your objections - and fail to meet the challenge at issue - that it be demonstrated faith and superstition be demonstrated differentiable - offer no disappointment. You have objections, but there has been presented no argument in support of those objections.

I - in concert with others on this thread - say faith and superstition are the same. You say they are not. Demonstrate - logically, objectively, and in dispassionate, forensically valid manner, that they be not the same.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Christian doesn't mean doormat. Christian doesn't mean stupid.

I said no such thing that you had to like Christianity. I told you that no one was asking you to accept our faith and this was just a forum. If you don't like Christianity I don't see the point of engaging in discussions about it is all.

I demanded nothing. I told you why I laughed at that article. I AM NOT superior.

Judging by those last two posts from Momma & Einherjar I guess it's safe to throw in a little "holier than thou" to describe a few in this thread.

Since no one else is doing so Momma, I guess it is left to me to point out the dishonesty in your last post. Going back to your post ..... Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:33 pm...... you wrote in no uncertain terms, "If you don't like Christianity don't bother putting yourself in the middle of it in these threads".

And Einherjar acting like your little echo repeated said requirement by advising me to spend my time elsewhere. Why should I? Just because you two don't like what I have to say? I'm not sure whether I should just point out the dishonesty or should I also take a poke at the hypocrisy on display here?

For starters, I came to this thread because I saw Frank Apisa's name and the title sounded interesting. I did not come because of you or 'Einherjar'. I came to add my opinion in answer to Frank's question because I feel that I have something to offer based on my many years of observation of "Chistians" in this bible belt.

Timberlandko will tell you that we seldom agree on anything but he's nailed the whole darn crowd of you today with "faith and superstition are the same." I have yet to see any one of you produce anything that you can prove. Everything you write is based on blind faith in a god that no human being has ever seen.

Just about everything you find in the bible is also found in Greek, Norse & other mythology that was written hundreds of years before the first book of the Bible was written.

I don't think Sam's article says anything about atheists
being the enlightned ones. It does say that they are realistic.

Are you also the one who said that the lives of atheists
are pointless? Well, I beg to differ with you. My rotting body will do the same as yours and make good fertilizer for some plants or trees.
That's just about all it was ever intended to do after I take my last breath... a continuation of the life cycle on this planet until it is finished with us and we are replaced by other critters.

0 Replies

Irrational means with outlogic.

0 Replies

Faith does not require proof. We go by the Bible because the feeling God gives us is more than enough proof that God does exist. Complete peace would be just one feeling he gives us. Obviously, this is hard to understand for someone who does not have God, therefore they naturaly don't believe in him. Look around you, open your eyes. He's all around. How do you think we got here? Big Bang? We evolved from monkeys? Please.

All he asks is for one to step out in faith and trust him, he will provide the rest. He has shown himself to me many times and does for those who believe in him. It's so sad to think that many seem to "know" they will be fertilizer when they die. Or the very fact that they only believe in what they can see, feel (physically) hear, taste, and smell. Come on....you've gotta reach higher than that.

So sorry you don't have him or you could see this so easily. To me....this is a waste.

Wanda

0 Replies

Quote:

Faith does not require proof. We go by the Bible because the feeling God gives us is more than enough proof that God does exist. Complete peace would be just one feeling he gives us

Could you please explain what distinguishes the 'feeling' you get from your god from the feeling wiccans get from their godess?
Or the feelings of peace hindus attain through their gods?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

What is open and closed is that you have no case; in no way can faith be proven to be rational. As previously stipulated, faith is succeptible to no proof.

I - in concert with others on this thread - say faith and superstition are the same. You say they are not. Demonstrate - logically, objectively, and in dispassionate, forensically valid manner, that they be not the same.

Timberlandko, Do you feel as though you are talking to a brick wall?
We both know that the best answer you are going to get is "because the Bible says so".

Recently I read the book, "Under the Banner of Heaven, A story of violent faith" which starts with this sentence on the front cover:

"On July 24, 1984, a woman and her infant daughter were murdered by two brothers who believed they were ordered to kill by God. The roots of their crime lie deep in the history of an American religion practiced by millions..."

While this book is primarily about fundamentalist Mormons, it is also about the rise of the fundamentalist kind of religion in general. Follow with "What's the Matter with Kansas" for a history of the the rise of the rabid right in the United States. They make no secret of the fact that they intend to 'conquer' the entire world and force their kind of religion on everyone.

Yes, we will hear the screams of denial but it doesn't take much of an education to see that the "Because the Bible tells me so" crowd have been brainwashed into listening only to what their ministers, preachers, priests, tell them.

How about Revelations? Is that some grand science fiction or what?

0 Replies

Blood atonement

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

Judging by those last two posts from Momma & Einherjar I guess it's safe to throw in a little "holier than thou" to describe a few in this thread.

This might be a good time to mention that I am an atheist.

Magginkat wrote:

Since no one else is doing so Momma, I guess it is left to me to point out the dishonesty in your last post. Going back to your post ..... Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:33 pm...... you wrote in no uncertain terms, "If you don't like Christianity don't bother putting yourself in the middle of it in these threads".

I agree that sounds suspect at first, and should probably have been phrased differently. Keep in mind though that it was said in context of you whining about being tormented enough by religious people in everyday life, and complaining that they now also express their oppinions on webforums allocated to discussing "Spirituality and Religion". Upon making this astonishing discovery you yourself declared that you would probably leave because of it.

Magginkat wrote:

And Einherjar acting like your little echo repeated said requirement by advising me to spend my time elsewhere.

Now you are being dishonest, I said I "pretty much" agreed with momma. I agreed with what I thought she was trying to say, but added the qualifyer "pretty much" to guard myself against that exact slipup. I proceeded to specify in no uncertain terms: "you're not required to like anything but the fray", to make sure I couldn't be misinterpreted as saying that a like for Christianity should be a requirement for discussing it. Also note that my advice for you to spend your time elsewhere was proceeded by the qualifier "if you find that [the fray] unpleasant". I stand by that piece of advice, no one who finds debates on spirituality and religion unpleasant should spend their time on a forum set aside for them.

Magginkat wrote:

Why should I? Just because you two don't like what I have to say? I'm not sure whether I should just point out the dishonesty or should I also take a poke at the hypocrisy on display here?

No, you should spend your time elsewhere if you find debates on the topic of spirituality and religion unpleasant, because if you find debates on the topic of spirituality and religion unpleasant you're stay here is certain to be an agonising one.

I don't really see why I should have to spell that out for you.

Magginkat wrote:

For starters, I came to this thread because I saw Frank Apisa's name and the title sounded interesting. I did not come because of you or 'Einherjar'. I came to add my opinion in answer to Frank's question because I feel that I have something to offer based on my many years of observation of "Chistians" in this bible belt.

If you have read any of Franks threads you should not be at all surprised to find a debate in which theists are represented unfolding in it.

Magginkat wrote:

Timberlandko will tell you that we seldom agree on anything but he's nailed the whole darn crowd of you today with "faith and superstition are the same." I have yet to see any one of you produce anything that you can prove. Everything you write is based on blind faith in a god that no human being has ever seen.

I challenge you to produce a single quote from me during my entire stay at here that would be considered by a reasonable human being to be based on "blind faith in a god that no human being has ever seen" or any kind of faith in any kind of deighty whatsoever.

Oh, and Timberlandko didn't nail me with that argument, because I'm firmly behind it.

Magginkat wrote:

Are you also the one who said that the lives of atheists are pointless?

No, that was neither of us. That thread was the scene of an outlandish spectacle as nearly every atheist on the forum, for no apparant reason, agreed that the thread starter had overstepped some boundry and condemned the entire thread. MA also agreed with them, but then she holds to more stringent rules of courtesy than most.

I'm the only atheist on record as stating that the thread title was merely wrong, and not any more inflamatory than is to be expected at web forums. If you're a fan of Frank Apisa I would expect for your views on what is and what isn't acceptable on web forums in terms of inflamatory thread titles to be in line with mine.[/quote]

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
I have no need to demonstrate it as rational or logical. You claimed it was irrational, and have not demonstrated it to be so. It is a fairly open and closed case at this point.

What is open and closed is that you have no case; in no way can faith be proven to be rational. As previously stipulated, faith is succeptible to no proof.

I see no such previous stipulation in our exchanges.

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
timberlandko wrote:

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

Don't be silly, I have no such burden.

Forensically, yes you have. The validity of the proposition you champion has been challenged. For your proposition to stand, its validity must be demonstrated. It is your assertion faith and superstition be not undifferentiable. Demonstrate that to be the case.

I have no burden to demonstrate that faith is purely emotional. Here you challenged my proposition that there is a distinction between faith and superstition by asserting that faith is purely emotional, an assertion that has been rebutted. Either demonstrate that faith is purely emotional, or withdraw the assertion.

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Implicator wrote:
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.

You'll need to be a bit more specific. You seem to think I have demonstrated your point, but since there is nothing in what I said that entails emotion or lack of logic, you will need to try to draw the connection you seem to be seeing.

As mentioned above, and as you say, faith is succeptable to no validation. I need draw no connection; that a religionist would refuse to acknowledge or cannot see the connection is itself confirmation of the point made.

Any alleged confirmation is founded on a misinterpretation of what I said. Read my comments again. If you think a connection exists, then rise to the challenge of explaining what you think it is.

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
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.

Highly relevant - it refutes your implication that emotion as a by product indicates emotion as a necessary integral.

Poppycock - no such implication was offered. You're interpreting - overlaying your preconceptions.

Of course I am interpreting, just as anyone does when they ascribe meaning to words on a page. You implied that the existence of the emotional aspects of faith "illustrated" that your earlier contention that faith is irrational was true, thus my response to you indicating one does not necessitate the other. As there is no necessary correlation between faith as a by product and faith as a component, your "illustration" fails.

timberlandko wrote:

Implicator wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
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.

See my reply above re: drawing the connection.

Its not atypical that a religionist would persist in circular argument; it rather is to be expected. The manner in which you present your objections - and fail to meet the challenge at issue - that it be demonstrated faith and superstition be demonstrated differentiable - offer no disappointment. You have objections, but there has been presented no argument in support of those objections.

You have handled this interchange much the same way as our previous discussion regarding interpretation (with the exception of asserting circularity on my part). You simply reiterate the same claims without supporting them, namely that faith is irrational (as if this alone would make it the same as superstition), precisely because it is emotional and unable to stand up to logical validation. Neither claim has been supported as of yet.

timberlandko wrote:

I - in concert with others on this thread - say faith and superstition are the same. You say they are not. Demonstrate - logically, objectively, and in dispassionate, forensically valid manner, that they be not the same.

I have demonstrated marked differences between the two by means of a simple definition of each term. Each challenge you have leveled either lacks demonstrability, or is based on misinterpretation of my comments.

And the fact that others still agree with you is irrelevant.

I

0 Replies

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

timber wrote:
Irrelevant.

Implicator wrote:
Highly relevant - it refutes your implication that emotion as a by product indicates emotion as a necessary integral.

False. If faith is not based on "emotion," what is it based on?

Your suggestion that all emotion must be passionate or not is also wrong. Timber never made that connectdion.

0 Replies

Implicator wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Implicator wrote:

I have no need to demonstrate it as rational or logical. You claimed it was irrational, and have not demonstrated it to be so. It is a fairly open and closed case at this point.

What is open and closed is that you have no case; in no way can faith be proven to be rational. As previously stipulated, faith is succeptible to no proof.

I see no such previous stipulation in our exchanges.

Implicator wrote:

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 again is your own statement, stipulating faith be insusceptible to proof.

Now, nowhere, despite your persistent attempt to misdirect through mischaracterization, do I equate faith with emotion, I merely point out faith, in concert with its twin, superstition, is and are emotional constructs as opposed to logical or rational constructs. In a fashion typical of apologists of the religionist proposition, you have employed straw man fallacy in support of petitio in principii fallacy. Now, granted, that's entailed in any defense of the religionist proposition, but that in no way relieves the practice of its self evident absurdity. You have demonstrated no marked difference between faith and superstition, you merely have claimed to have done so.

I will give you a thumbs-up for pluck - you hang in there indefatigably. However, your forensic accomplishments in the matter of establishing any validity whatsoever for your proposition and in the matter of providing substantive objection to the challenges posed your proposition and objections have been nil.

I think it not at all irrelevant that others in this thread agree with me - I think that too demonstrates well that you have no case. You have a peoposition, yes, and you have objections to the challenges presented against your proposition. That is all you have. Well, not quite all, I suppose, you do have your faith in the superstitions that form the basis of your core proposition.

You have made no point; you have offered foundationless, fallacy-laden, invalid, intellectually bankrupt argument. Perhaps the strongest argument against the religionist proposition is that provided by such proponents of that proposition as bring nothing to the table but foundationless, fallacy-laden, invalid, intellectually bankrupt argument. From the evidence, one might be justified in concluding thats the best they've got.

Now, one more time - demonstrate that faith and superstition be not the same.

Oh, and Magginkat - it is really good to see you here on the boards again. Yeah, as you noticed, the folks agreeing with me in this discussion generally aren't exactly what you mught call my supporters, are they :wink:

0 Replies

We use logic that is all.

0 Replies

Implicator doesn't get to have his own particular definitions of words such as faith and superstition so as to facilitate his argument. Words must have consensual meaning, or language fails as communication.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Faith does not require proof. We go by the Bible because the feeling God gives us is more than enough proof that God does exist. Complete peace would be just one feeling he gives us

Could you please explain what distinguishes the 'feeling' you get from your god from the feeling wiccans get from their godess?
Or the feelings of peace hindus attain through their gods?

I cannot answer for them since I'm not a wiccan or a Hindu. I only go by what the Bible tells me as to only worship one God....I know this may sound silly to you since "how can I go by that bible" right? I do because it has shown me what I need to know. HE has shown me what I need to know to live a fulfilled life and an eternal one.

Hmm....I know this isn't good enough for you, but that's ok.

LOL

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know