(sorry - I had to go back and C&P to include context in my response to your statements)
Here are you being sure of things:
Quote:
If you are hearing threats from the great beyond, I assure you they are not issuing from the lips of God.
The God of my understanding does not put voices into people's heads, certainly not threats. I would encourage anyone who hears voices to seek out their nearest mental health professional regardless of where they think those voices originate. On this My understanding may be incomplete, but I would still urge such an individual to consult with a mental health professional.
Quote:
which is supposed to be an assistance to help one become closer to God during this life and to help one live a life that is more in accord with displaying and practicing selflessness and love of our fellow man and God.
--
Sounds like an expression of belief to me, what about it strikes you as an absolutist assertion without measure of reserve or subjectivity?
Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
To me, the path toward God and trying to follow the selfless lessons of Christianity, makes sense, to me, even if God does not ultimately exist. If I die and there is no afterlife and no eternal communion with the Creator, none of my life would have been wasted, and I will have improved, at least in small ways, the lives of those with whom I've interacted.
That's your right. --
And my belief
Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Rail against the various established church duplicities and hypocrisies all you wish, condemn the con artist and power-monger in priest's robes from the every town-hall, and feel free to shun and deride the Saturday Sinner/Sunday Saint, but know that while all of these may be found within the broad range of the culture of religion, they are not the whole of the phenomenon.
And no matter how nice the rest might be, it can still not provide any truth about our world, and that is what I am interested in. And I don't care in the least what various people with faith think and feel about god/gods. If they come here with claims though, I'll ask them to verify those claims. --
By their fruit shall ye know them
;-)
Claims of supernatural cannot be evidenced or proofed within, or by the natural. I don't know if the supernatural exists, and certainly would be foolish enough to try and apply science to a task it is not equipped (or designed) to address. The only thing I can tell you about my religion are my faith, my beliefs, and how these shape and guide my life. There are no proofs or empiric evidences to support the first, and only weak and largely circular supports for the second. As to the third, I'd be happy to share the anecdotes, but they are unlikely to persuade anyone of anything that they are not already open to.
Please understand, I didn't enter this discussion to attack or convert anyone. I was merely interested in defending against the apparent presumption by some that the caricature strawmen typically thrown out do not accurate reflect all who possess faith in a religion.
Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Who's to say that a thousand different interpretations are not the right way to do so? There are several different "proper" interpretations for every scritural passage, it is generally only through the understanding of these differing interpretations and individual consideration and contemplation of them that an individual is capable of coming to an individual understanding of message(s) which the author(s) were attempting to convey.
Who decide which interpretations are proper, if, as you say, several can be proper? Is there any truth in all this that are the same for everybody? If people want to come to individual understanding of things, sure they are entitled to. But as soon as they use this individual understanding to tell other people how they should view things, they had better have some evidence as to why their view is the right one. --
There are accepted historical writing and socio-cultural exegesis methodologies, that are applicable whether we are talking about ancient Egyptian papyrii, Cuneform tablets or Hebrew scripture. These proper methodolgies of interpretation and understanding are generally recognized as applicable regardless of the type of historic document one is trying to interpret and understand.
Look how condescendingly arrogant you were in your dismissal of grayman's interpretation, and the "individual understanding" about the scriptures that he has reached:
Quote:
Your literalist interpretations and displayed sophistication of consideration are both quaint and amusing.
I suppose that interpretations that comes to a critical view of the scriptures are not "proper"?.
Again, the perception of condescension and arrogance are more in your perception/projection, than in my intention. Those out-of-context, literalist translations are very simplistic, generally improper and I do find the employment of these in a apparent attempt to discredit a more historic and sociologically appropriate interpretation to be amusing.
It is rather the equivilant of someone arguing that a given algebraic equation is wrong because you cannot divde letters of the alphabet, they aren't numbers.
Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
The most import aspect of interpretation is known as "context." Cherry-picking and pulling passages out of the context within which they were written is no more proper in scriptural exegesis than it is scientific debate/discussion.
You said before that:
Quote:
And you believe that these are perfect reflections of God's will, hand-written by God and that they are directed specifically at you and have remained in context and without alteration in literal word and meaning throughout time and translation? Your faith is evidently much stronger and more directed than mine.
Here you are showing a bit of a sarcastic nature yourself, aren't you? Because you could see that grayman is actually not a believer, couldn't you? You also seem to say here that scriptures does not really matter, so why is the context of this book suddenly of such importance? And interpreting isn't the same thing as cherry picking in this case? Yeah, right! It seems to me you have interpreted away all the bad cruel stuff in the bible, how's that for cherry picking? .
Not sarcastic, both literalism and fundementalism refer to a manner of interpretation, thought and belief, not a merely a particular or specific brand of religion, and no I can't see that Grayman is not a believer, actually you both strike me as quite firmly convicted believers, or bleevers, you just reject religious theism.
