|
Post by gadreel on Feb 15, 2018 17:27:30 GMT
But this is what makes it so hard, contextually you can argue that sodom was destroyed for the sin of lack of hospitality. No, the argument that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of lack of hospitality doesn't even hold water under the scrutiny of Ezekiel's passage by itself, let alone what the rest of scripture says on the topic. Nope. They didn't even apply to Peter, so why would they apply to Christians 2,000 years later? So the bible it NOT written for everyone in every time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 17:40:35 GMT
No, the argument that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of lack of hospitality doesn't even hold water under the scrutiny of Ezekiel's passage by itself, let alone what the rest of scripture says on the topic. Nope. They didn't even apply to Peter, so why would they apply to Christians 2,000 years later? So the bible it NOT written for everyone in every time? No, that's not correct what you are saying. The Bible was written for everyone in every time. And so when, in the Bible, it tells us to evolve our practices, we evolved them.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 15, 2018 17:49:05 GMT
So the bible it NOT written for everyone in every time? No, that's not correct what you are saying. The Bible was written for everyone in every time. And so when, in the Bible, it tells us to evolve our practices, we evolved them. fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 15, 2018 17:59:26 GMT
You can remove a microchip. It's just a sub-dermal implant. This is sort of a pointless conversation, given that the OP is hoping for an irremovable devil device planted deep in the brain tissue, monitoring his most secret thoughts, finally bringing about the fractured sci-fi dystopia human slavery epidemic he's been hoping for since Jade Helm fell through and all those empty Walmarts just ended up being empty Walmarts. I know they can be removed in practice, but if the usage of these becomes widespread, you would probably be severely disadvantaged by having it removed, as the excerpt from the TED video discussed. I don't know whether Erjen's specific fears for this are well founded or wildly paranoid; but it would be naive not to be concerned at all about microchipping. Every single new form of tech will come with new security concerns. Videos cameras on consoles have been used to spy on people's homes. Baby monitors have been hacked to scare the hell out of parents and kids. Phones have (obviously) been used to track, given they have a built in function for it. Always security concerns.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 15, 2018 19:22:54 GMT
tpfkar Some are saying it can be programmed to change your DNA so that you won't be human anymore, turn you into just another byte recorded in the main frame; a slave without any will of your own. I don't know enough about the technology to be able to comment on these predictions, but neither do I rule them out. For the moment I'm more concerned about the effects of a "cashless" society on people who refuse to participate in it for religious and/or philosophical reasons. You freely admit communicating with evil aliens, inside your head. I don't think I phrased it like that, but what if I did? What are you going to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 21:05:36 GMT
With respect (mostly) Context is in the eye of the beholder and is a result of differences in translations, interpretations and personal agenda when reading the Bible. While it's true that I don't read Greek or Hebrew, I only read the KJV, which, in congruence with the logistic capability of the British Empire, leads me to believe it was the version the world was meant to read. My interpretations are sound because I have no personal agenda. I was and remain a completely empty and open vessel when it comes to the scriptures. You are right, though. Many people do allow their personal agendas to influence their interpretation, which is how you end up with garbage readings like Sodom was punished for not being hospitable. In the 'context' of our conversation about translations and interpretations such as the KJV of the Bible itself, how can you possibly make such a claim that it was the version 'meant' to be read. Eye of the beholder, much? What evidence do you have for that and how did you come to that decision? You must have personally chosen that version for some reason, probably for convenience and then applied your obvious 'agenda' to maintain your beliefs and claims, with your personal analysis and interpretation of its contents. You have no personal agenda? You just proved that is false with your previous statement as I pointed out. IMHO, to be able to fairly assess the content of the Bible ( let alone its meaning which is read WITH a huge agenda by all believers) you would need to be a Biblical scholar adept in translation from the original languages AND have a better knowledge of the derivation and provenance of the Bile writings than we have, or in fact, it is possible to have after 2,000 year of previous possible pollution and corruption, by people with varying agendas. Lastly, you admit that many people do that, and yet YOU don't? Pull the other one, it has bells on!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 21:32:37 GMT
While it's true that I don't read Greek or Hebrew, I only read the KJV, which, in congruence with the logistic capability of the British Empire, leads me to believe it was the version the world was meant to read. My interpretations are sound because I have no personal agenda. I was and remain a completely empty and open vessel when it comes to the scriptures. You are right, though. Many people do allow their personal agendas to influence their interpretation, which is how you end up with garbage readings like Sodom was punished for not being hospitable. In the 'context' of our conversation about translations and interpretations such as the KJV of the Bible itself, how can you possibly make such a claim that it was the version 'meant' to be read. Eye of the beholder, much? What evidence do you have for that and how did you come to that decision? You must have personally chosen that version for some reason, probably for convenience and then applied your obvious 'agenda' to maintain your beliefs and claims, with your personal analysis and interpretation of its contents. You have no personal agenda? You just proved that is false with your previous statement as I pointed out. IMHO, to be able to fairly assess the content of the Bible ( let alone its meaning which is read WITH a huge agenda by all believers) you would need to be a Biblical scholar adept in translation from the original languages AND have a better knowledge of the derivation and prevenance of the Bile writings than we have, or in fact, it is possible to have after 2,000 year of previous possible pollution and corruption, by people with varying agendas. Lastly, you admit that many people do that, and yet YOU don't? Pull the other one, it has bells on! As I stated, given the events that took place historically, with the domination of the globe that the British Empire achieved, coupled with the fact that English is the global language, I am only assuming - albeit carefully - that the KJV is the correct translation intended for the world. It has nothing to do with "eye of beholder" and everything to do with accepting the facts and lessons learned from history and then applying Occam's Razor to them. I have no personal agenda as it pertains to how I interpret the Bible. There are plenty of things in there that I am prevented from doing that I would love to do. Personally, I think the notion that one must be a biblical scholar or bilingual to correctly interpret it is absurd. No one would demand this same level of erudition in order to properly read the instructions that come with assembling a book case.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 22:27:22 GMT
In the 'context' of our conversation about translations and interpretations such as the KJV of the Bible itself, how can you possibly make such a claim that it was the version 'meant' to be read. Eye of the beholder, much? What evidence do you have for that and how did you come to that decision? You must have personally chosen that version for some reason, probably for convenience and then applied your obvious 'agenda' to maintain your beliefs and claims, with your personal analysis and interpretation of its contents. You have no personal agenda? You just proved that is false with your previous statement as I pointed out. IMHO, to be able to fairly assess the content of the Bible ( let alone its meaning which is read WITH a huge agenda by all believers) you would need to be a Biblical scholar adept in translation from the original languages AND have a better knowledge of the derivation and prevenance of the Bile writings than we have, or in fact, it is possible to have after 2,000 year of previous possible pollution and corruption, by people with varying agendas. Lastly, you admit that many people do that, and yet YOU don't? Pull the other one, it has bells on! As I stated, given the events that took place historically, with the domination of the globe that the British Empire achieved, coupled with the fact that English is the global language, I am only assuming - albeit carefully - that the KJV is the correct translation intended for the world. It has nothing to do with "eye of beholder" and everything to do with accepting the facts and lessons learned from history and then applying Occam's Razor to them. I have no personal agenda as it pertains to how I interpret the Bible. There are plenty of things in there that I am prevented from doing that I would love to do. Personally, I think the notion that one must be a biblical scholar or bilingual to correctly interpret it is absurd. No one would demand this same level of erudition in order to properly read the instructions that come with assembling a book case. Well done! There are some nice deflections there butt no substance. Again, how can you possibly claim that an English translation of a Bible that is translated into hundreds of languages and was arranged/formulated/written from 1604-1611 on the basis of white colonialism ( which was actually not firmly established then which began in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia in the US and later in later areas ) was commissioned by James the 1st and was specifically for Church of England readers, be the one true word? To quote Wiki " James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[9 " Of course you have a personal agenda because you are a classic case of confirmation bias where you interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. I really like your comparison of using the instructions in the Bible to living your life like the instructions to build a bookcase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 22:36:56 GMT
As I stated, given the events that took place historically, with the domination of the globe that the British Empire achieved, coupled with the fact that English is the global language, I am only assuming - albeit carefully - that the KJV is the correct translation intended for the world. It has nothing to do with "eye of beholder" and everything to do with accepting the facts and lessons learned from history and then applying Occam's Razor to them. I have no personal agenda as it pertains to how I interpret the Bible. There are plenty of things in there that I am prevented from doing that I would love to do. Personally, I think the notion that one must be a biblical scholar or bilingual to correctly interpret it is absurd. No one would demand this same level of erudition in order to properly read the instructions that come with assembling a book case. Well done! There are some nice deflections there butt no substance. Again, how can you possibly claim that an English translation of a Bible that is translated into hundreds of languages and was arranged/formulated/written from 1604-1611 on the basis of white colonialism ( which was actually not firmly established then which began in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia in the US and later in later areas ) was commissioned by James the 1st and was specifically for Church of England readers, be the one true word? To quote Wiki " James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[9 " Of course you have a personal agenda because you are a classic case of confirmation bias where you interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. I really like your comparison of using the instructions in the Bible to living your life like the instructions to build a bookcase. Whatever, Goz. You don't have to like my explanation. If ridiculing me makes you feel better, have at it. Feel free to label me as you wish if labeling people increases your personal insight. All I can say is that I'm really glad to be me and glad that people with a mind like you are mostly marginalized. As for understanding the Bible, it has come much more naturally to me than building a book case ever did. I'm so sorry to hear it has been such a challenge for you.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 23:44:39 GMT
Well done! There are some nice deflections there butt no substance. Again, how can you possibly claim that an English translation of a Bible that is translated into hundreds of languages and was arranged/formulated/written from 1604-1611 on the basis of white colonialism ( which was actually not firmly established then which began in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia in the US and later in later areas ) was commissioned by James the 1st and was specifically for Church of England readers, be the one true word? To quote Wiki " James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[9 " Of course you have a personal agenda because you are a classic case of confirmation bias where you interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. I really like your comparison of using the instructions in the Bible to living your life like the instructions to build a bookcase. Whatever, Goz. You don't have to like my explanation. If ridiculing me makes you feel better, have at it. Feel free to label me as you wish if labeling people increases your personal insight. All I can say is that I'm really glad to be me and glad that people with a mind like you are mostly marginalized. As for understanding the Bible, it has come much more naturally to me than building a book case ever did. I'm so sorry to hear it has been such a challenge for you. I wasn't ridiculing you and I am not sure what the label was. I am sorry you see it that way. I was replying to and expanding on your claims and the historical background. I like to think of myself as an Ikea bookcase with a few screws missing!
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 16, 2018 8:50:10 GMT
You're the only one here talking about "the end of the world." No I'm not. Well, who else is talking about "the end of the world" on this thread besides you. Name somebody.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 10:24:15 GMT
Well, who else is talking about "the end of the world" on this thread besides you. Name somebody. @winterssuicide . He mentioned "dystopian societies" as the current context of discussion. I don't live in a world with a dystopian society. If my world was to be replaced with a world with a dystopian society, the world as I know it would have to end. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 16, 2018 10:28:11 GMT
Well, who else is talking about "the end of the world" on this thread besides you. Name somebody. @winterssuicide . He mentioned "dystopian societies" as the current context of discussion. I don't live in a world with a dystopian society. If my world was to be replaced with a world with a dystopian society, the world as I know it would have to end. You're welcome. That's your view of it, but the "end of the world" entails a lot more than "the end of the world as you know it." It isn't all about you. You're welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 11:41:36 GMT
Oh look, somebody saved me the trouble. Poor old Often-Wrong Erjen, wrong again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 15:08:19 GMT
Well, who else is talking about "the end of the world" on this thread besides you. Name somebody. @winterssuicide . He mentioned "dystopian societies" as the current context of discussion. I don't live in a world with a dystopian society. If my world was to be replaced with a world with a dystopian society, the world as I know it would have to end. You're welcome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 15:09:47 GMT
North Korea is a dystopian society and we are not experiencing the end of the world, are we?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 16:16:08 GMT
North Korea is a dystopian society It is? Do they forcefully chip their citizens? and we are not experiencing the end of the world, are we? I don't live in North Korea. Do you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 16:18:53 GMT
North Korea is a dystopian society It is? Do they forcefully chip their citizens? and we are not experiencing the end of the world, are we? I don't live in North Korea. Do you? Yes, it is. No, not that I know of. No, I don't live there. Not sure why me living there or them chipping or not chipping their citizenry has to do with a dystopia or your stretch.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 16:26:40 GMT
It is? Do they forcefully chip their citizens? I don't live in North Korea. Do you? Yes, it is. No, not that I know of. No, I don't live there. Not sure why me living there or them chipping or not chipping their citizenry has to do with a dystopia or your stretch. If these points have nothing to do with each other, then you are basically saying that the following post of yours was completely pointless. You realize microchips (as they stand) are just inserted under the skin in a fatty tissue area. They're removable in minutes in an out patient process. Valid points, except, as you've said, that's "as they stand," now and, in a dystopian society (which is our context), you would not be able to remove them in an out-patient process because that would be illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 16:30:39 GMT
Yes, it is. No, not that I know of. No, I don't live there. Not sure why me living there or them chipping or not chipping their citizenry has to do with a dystopia or your stretch. If these points have nothing to do with each other, then you are basically saying that the following post of yours was completely pointless. Valid points, except, as you've said, that's "as they stand," now and, in a dystopian society (which is our context), you would not be able to remove them in an out-patient process because that would be illegal. Are you seriously insinuating that only a society that has chip implementation can be considered dystopian?!? There are dozens of different ways a society can dystopian. That's my point. That point came after the point I made when I pointed out your false comparison between dystopia and "the end of the world."
|
|