>>5872930I'm not mad at you. Your mistake is one a lot of people make. Let me explain it in full.
As a preface, I am not a Christian. But I do like the bible. I've read it. Christ says a lot of things that I think are pretty insightful, and good too.
My problem comes about whenever somebody takes a good piece of writing and starts to interpret it. In your case, you say that you've read the bible, but you don't need specific lines, because you "understand" it.
I don't think that you do understand it. I don't think it's okay to twist words to mean what we want them to mean. I think whatever Jesus says, Jesus means. After all, what kind of asshole son of God would come down and say all this shit and let people fight over what it means? I'll say it twice, because it's important. Jesus means what he says, and his words are found in the bible.
If you look at the Old Testament, there are ten commandments. Between its writing and the birth of Christ, people did a lot of interpreting of those commandments, twisting them to mean this, or that. When Christ came around, he shortened those commandments into one: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If the commandments were meant to be interpreted, you'd think Christ would have expanded on them, and how they should be interpreted. But he didn't. He shortened them, and made them simpler.
If you interpret the words, you change what they mean, often to mean what you want them to mean. When you interpret the bible, you become the bible.
When I talked to you about it for, I wasn't sure what you had meant. I thought your criticism of the bible was that it's translation. Interpretation is a necessity of translation. And so that would have been a very good criticism indeed. I was disappointed that your criticism of others interpreting bible to make arguments was inspired by your interpreting the bible as well.
>>5872935I know, I know, but I can't always help myself.
Save me
