Religious Authoritarianism Has America nailed to its Cross

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 minute ago, ryoder said:

I'd argue that interpreting the constitution is easier, because at least the people arguing about it, are not arguing over a document that was translated from another language.

Right. 

"Well regulated"
"Militia"

"Cruel and unusual punishment"
"Foreign entanglements"

[ryoder 1,590]

3 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Right. 

"Well regulated"
"Militia"

"Cruel and unusual punishment"
"Foreign entanglements"

OK, you have a point there. But at least "militia" was defined a few years later as: 

Every free, white, male, citizen, between the ages of 18-45.

See Second Militia Act of 1792: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 minutes ago, ryoder said:

OK, you have a point there. But at least "militia" was defined a few years later as: 

Every free, white, male, citizen, between the ages of 18-45.

See Second Militia Act of 1792: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

 

First off, my post was at least mostly sarcastic. You should know that, we've gone back and forth enough times (note - I think you knew that).

Second, the 'language' issue is a huge one.

"Interpreting" the Constitution has a few different facets, presuming one is doing it honestly. 
Deciding what the founders meant.
Deciding if what was appropriate then is appropriate now. 
Deciding if altering the original meaning is appropriate, and what it will bring in the future. 

Fortunately, we have a fair amount of background info from when it was written, and can refer to that to try to determine what the 'original intent' was. 
The other two are a lot harder.

That's why, in theory, the Supreme Court justices who are making most of these decisions should have a LOT of experience in doing so, and a lot of previous decisions as lower court judges. 
Or at least they used to have that.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

50 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

A systematic, comprehensive, and much more reasonable approach is NOT to come to the bible with preconceptions and bias but to listen to the Word of God in all its particulars, in all of its detail, and then try and discern how all of these individual truths fit together.

So presuming that the Bible is the 'word of God' ISN'T a preconception?

It's funny how you bounce back and forth between the idea that the Bible is the "word of God" and "laws put in place by man" depending on what you do and don't obey. Or want to force others to obey.

[billvon 2,990]

52 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

The idea is NOT to insert your meaning into what an author writes (eisegesis). 

And yet you regularly list your interpretations of what the author wrote, and indeed list which of the author's rules you can disregard, for reasons.

[gowlerk 2,190]

55 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

The idea is NOT to insert your meaning into what an author writes (eisegesis).  The idea is to try and understand the author's meaning (exegesis).  Considerations include, author's intent, historical setting, audience, grammar, context, etc.

Yes, and tell me please, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[jaybird18c 24]

56 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, and tell me please, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

That's an EXCELLENT nonsensical question!  NOBODY else has come up with THAT one!  Well done!  I'm stumped!  

[RonD1120 62]

On 12/29/2020 at 6:29 PM, billvon said:

That's it!  I'm going to start a religion based on space aliens and some stuff about how people have superpowers.  Everything will be very expensive for believers, and one of the tenets of my religion will require me to purchase airplanes and boats for use in our ceremonies.

Think anyone would buy it?

Google L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

[jaybird18c 24]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

And yet you regularly list your interpretations of what the author wrote, and indeed list which of the author's rules you can disregard, for reasons.

They're not my interpretations.  I don't understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

[jaybird18c 24]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So presuming that the Bible is the 'word of God' ISN'T a preconception?

It's funny how you bounce back and forth between the idea that the Bible is the "word of God" and "laws put in place by man" depending on what you do and don't obey. Or want to force others to obey.

No.  You're correct.  That is a preconception.  We pre-conceive the floor exists before stepping out of bed every day too.  

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, jaybird18c said:

The idea is NOT to insert your meaning into what an author writes (eisegesis).  The idea is to try and understand the author's meaning (exegesis).  Considerations include, author's intent, historical setting, audience, grammar, context, etc.

All of which are open to the reader's interpretation. 

[jaybird18c 24]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

All of which are open to the reader's interpretation. 

Merry Christmas Jakee!

[billvon 2,990]

46 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

They're not my interpretations.  I don't understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

Your interpretation of some Old Testament laws:  "Most of what you mentioned were laws, established by men, belonging to the Nation of Israel.  They were not laws established by God.  They were laws established by God's chosen people."

I assume you did not read them in Aramaic.  You read them in English.  They are quite clear.  Let's take Leviticus 19.  It starts with:

"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:"

That is God talking, not some men.

Continuing:
"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

So again, that is God saying "obey my laws."  But you reinterpret them in a way that you do not have to obey them, because they are inconvenient to you.  You have, in other words, inserted your own meaning into a Biblical law that you do not want to obey,

This isn't some horrible sin.  It's what you have to do to take the Bible seriously at all.  But it does get a little old when you attack others for doing what you yourself do.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, jaybird18c said:

They're not my interpretations.  I don't understand Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

But they are your interpretations of the interpretations, right? After all, be any book a book of fact or fiction any confusion or misinterpretation of the writers intent must fall to the reader.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, jaybird18c said:

No.  You're correct.  That is a preconception.  We pre-conceive the floor exists before stepping out of bed every day too.  

Not really.

The floor was there when I went to bed the night before. 

I can test and demonstrate that the floor is there without actually seeing it (observing someone else in the room, dropping an object over the side, observing the fact that I'm not falling through the sky or laying down in the basement).

There are objective tests and demonstrations that will show the floor is there.

You know, a 'preponderance of evidence' that the floor exists.
That can be shown before I step out of bed or even look over the side to see it.

God and the Bible?

Not so much.

In fact, there's a ton of evidence that "God's Word" is inaccurate.

Genesis & Noah are the two most obvious.

[BIGUN 1,307]

33 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

But they are your interpretations of the interpretations, right? After all, be any book a book of fact or fiction any confusion or misinterpretation of the writers intent must fall to the reader.

Incorrect. It is the responsibility of the writer to ensure the interpretation is fully understood by the reader.  

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Incorrect. It is the responsibility of the writer to ensure the interpretation is fully understood by the reader.  

Negatory. The writer can never know in advance what capabilities, prejudices, life experiences and so on the random reader will bring to the text. The writer can only write what they want to write. Beyond that it is all on the reader. 

[BIGUN 1,307]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Negatory. The writer can never know in advance what capabilities, prejudices, life experiences and so on the random reader will bring to the text. The writer can only write what they want to write. Beyond that it is all on the reader. 

Nope. The message and its interpretation to the reader is upon the writer.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Nope. The message and its interpretation to the reader is upon the writer.

Do you understand the meaning of every poem as I do?

[BIGUN 1,307]

17 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Do you understand the meaning of every poem as I do?

If the writer did their job.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

23 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If the writer did their job.

What if the writers intention was to make you think? 

[gowlerk 2,190]

18 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

What if the writers intention was to make you think? 

Bob Dylan was given a Nobel prize in literature for poetry that is completely open to interpretation and that he refuses to discuss the meaning of.

[gowlerk 2,190]

4 hours ago, jaybird18c said:

That's an EXCELLENT nonsensical question!  NOBODY else has come up with THAT one!  Well done!  I'm stumped!  

Which is pretty much the point of the question. And pretty much the core of your belief. You cannot give any reason why answers to any questions about it because there are none.

[timski 80]

On 12/30/2020 at 1:09 PM, jaybird18c said:

I don't live in Georgia.  Are you generalizing/stereotyping?

If it walks like a duck...

[Phil1111 1,149]

On 12/31/2020 at 12:55 PM, billvon said:

....So again, that is God saying "obey my laws."  But you reinterpret them in a way that you do not have to obey them, because they are inconvenient to you.  You have, in other words, inserted your own meaning into a Biblical law that you do not want to obey,

This isn't some horrible sin.  It's what you have to do to take the Bible seriously at all.  But it does get a little old when you attack others for doing what you yourself do.

The Proud Boys, other white supremacists, together with the usual mix of MAGA supporters have become full co-worshipers with evangelicals. While corporations, political leaders including GOP senators have broke from trump. Evangelicals continue their trump allegiance.

How White Evangelical Christians Fused With Trump Extremism.  "A potent mix of grievance and religious fervor has turbocharged the support among Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war.

Before self-proclaimed members of the far-right group the Proud Boys marched toward the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, they stopped to kneel in the street and prayed in the name of Jesus.

The group, whose participants have espoused misogynistic and anti-immigrant views, prayed for God to bring “reformation and revival.” They gave thanks for “the wonderful nation we’ve all been blessed to be in.” They asked God for the restoration of their “value systems,” and for the “courage and strength to both represent you and represent our culture well.” And they invoked the divine protection for what was to come.

Then they rose. Their leader declared into a bullhorn that the media must “get the hell out of my way.” And then they moved toward the Capitol."