Transgenderism ..... ask your questions!

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
eisegete
Click to expand...
gesundheit

and, unfortunately, EVERY ACT OF READING is eisegetetty?

unless, of course, you believe that the words of your bibble are uncaused caused that have innate, unchangeable identities of 'meaning' within them?

in case, that would be another of your axioms, your assumed priors that would naturally make communication with someone else who doesn't hold that problematic (enjoying this discussion a lot here, people discussing the shapes of their beliefs...)

So whenever someone reads the Bibble, they are 'making their own g_d', which read, t'me, like a trivial comment? Surely when someone reads there is a range of meanings -- not 'it can mean anything' or 'it means nothing', but something in between?
 
Last edited:
Well ....it was good while it lasted....
One need look no further than the King James Bible written by the hand of God himself.
After all ..... Jesus and the disciples spoke and wrote in english .....
Come to think of it all the aliens I see on television are fluent in english too....
The universal language and the bedrock of scripture (y)
 
Inannawhimsey said:
gesundheit

and, unfortunately, EVERY ACT OF READING is eisegetetty?

unless, of course, you believe that the words of your bibble are uncaused caused that have innate, unchangeable identities of 'meaning' within them?

in case, that would be another of your axioms, your assumed priors that would naturally make communication with someone else who doesn't hold that problematic (enjoying this discussion a lot here, people discussing the shapes of their beliefs...)

So whenever someone reads the Bibble, they are 'making their own g_d', which read, t'me, like a trivial comment? Surely when someone reads there is a range of meanings -- not 'it can mean anything' or 'it means nothing', but something in between?
Click to expand...
Good one.
But no,
if I say, I will meet you at the store, you know I plan to meet you, and the store may be vague, but if that is all I gave you, it is probably because be both have a place that we would both think of as the store.

If you show up, you understood my meaning.

If you are laying under a Kenworth waiting for Gretta Garbo to bring you pancakes, you have inserted meaning into my statement that I never intended. Like Steven does:whistle:
 
RitaTG said:
Well ....it was good while it lasted....
One need look no further than the King James Bible written by the hand of God himself.
After all ..... Jesus and the disciples spoke and wrote in english .....
Come to think of it all the aliens I see on television are fluent in english too....
The universal language and the bedrock of scripture (y)
Click to expand...


Oh brother,

God does not share His throne. The whole point of that site is to shove Him off. That is not a source to be taken seriously.
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
eisegete
Click to expand...

We're all eisegetes to an extent. The fact is that you simply can't read a document that's thousands of years old and that still isn't the original document, and that exists in many different translations into many different languages, given the reality that no two languages translate precisely one to the other, and therefore confronted with the inevitable differences in the choices of translators, without engaging in some degree of eisegesis. We will always approach Scripture with our biases. Does that mean we give up on exegesis? Of course not. But whether you want to admit it or not, exegesis and eisegesis accompany each other and guide us in our understanding of Scripture.
 
What @revsdd says above may well be true. However, I wonder if there isn't something else here at play. I've noticed that in casual theological discussions, one or both parties will often accuse the other of eisegesis. It's always seemed to me just a cheap attempt at cementing the "I'm right, you're obviously wrong" position. I find it quite refreshing to hear Steven say, "We're all eisegetes to an extent."
 
revsdd said:
We're all eisegetes to an extent. The fact is that you simply can't read a document that's thousands of years old and that still isn't the original document, and that exists in many different translations into many different languages, given the reality that no two languages translate precisely one to the other, and therefore confronted with the inevitable differences in the choices of translators, without engaging in some degree of eisegesis. We will always approach Scripture with our biases. Does that mean we give up on exegesis? Of course not. But whether you want to admit it or not, exegesis and eisegesis accompany each other and guide us in our understanding of Scripture.
Click to expand...

I apologize for my combative style. I just like stirred arguments and I even go after my MIL like this. She's a Word of Faith person and I like to pull her chain. At the end of the night I can always hug her and tell her I love her. That's harder here - so consider yourself hugged. Sometimes I take a position in a dispute that is not fully my own but I think it makes for a better battle.
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
I apologize for my combative style. I just like stirred arguments and I even go after my MIL like this. She's a Word of Faith person and I like to pull her chain. At the end of the night I can always hug her and tell her I love her. That's harder here - so consider yourself hugged. Sometimes I take a position in a dispute that is not fully my own but I think it makes for a better battle.
Click to expand...

Tugging on the chain of a Word of Faith (aka Prosperity Gospel) person is always good fun. I'll accept a hug but if you tell me that you love me we're gonna have a whole other set of problems to deal with! Unless of course it's like Saul and David. But even so I think we should get to know each other better before you go and get all mushy.
 
Last edited:
Pr. Jae said:
How many times has @chansen asserted that God committed genocide.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the character of God, it's only "genocide" if you consider the deliberate killing of a large group of people (or almost all) who belong to an identifiable group as "genocide".
 
Pontifex Geronimo 13 said:
I left out most of the passage. It is about not being deceived about how God thinks about a range of sins. But if you have made up your own God - you are deceived.
Click to expand...
If you start with the presupposition that God is good and fair-minded, then He should have no problems with homosexuality. If you allow the possibility that God is a sadistic, sex-obsessed micro-manager, then I can see where your beliefs can be considered correct.
 
Waterfall said:
Move over Henry VIII, I think God is sharing his throne in your version.
Click to expand...

Guute one ... allows that fantastic gut felling that all as well as de chit is creative and passing ... like words to Henry VIII's absconding with the throne and Edward left it ... what's that word for anti-absconding ... ewe noos ... word is like the ap'le of gods eye .. once spelt "ij" or converted to "Y" just after the god of ID started wondering Y heh did IT ... that god being a jae burd ... racing rye about in de columns .. aisle ETs of humanity? Twas a bloe burd ... way off course from wisdom of emotive sources ...
 
I just noticed the god of ijID easing (esse NG) like the Master jettison Jonah's baggage ... and thus he no longer cared to emote ... just pure thinking ...

Is that over the edge? The edge being a horizon formed by a fluid earth ... malleable? Fecund man dirt seeking a hommoe or common whoa mon ... pagan who knows more than you think about planting ... plant age in nuits! Kohl people ... not much heart as a place to warm your sole ... hearth-land?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top