It's ok to pretend any bible is "The Bible". But it's silly to get upset when scholars won't play your favorite games.

 @heyman5525

2 hours ago

Who says Im a Christian?This has nothing to do with the defense of any religion, but rather, the reasoning of, or from textual substance...whether it be an atheist, secular humanist, or religious person...and even if it be fictional or single subject texts. Dan is an epistemological nihilist...which is to say that no human being can derive applicable relevance from any textual material. Even athiests know the Bible, other religious texts, or even fictional works promotes certain perspectives on particular subjects...that people agree or disagree with. You're just trying to force your rehearsed and tailored arguments onto my statements, but like Dan, you need me to be something Im not...for your arguments to work. Dan isnt an expert on moral reasoning but atheists like Alex Oconnor definitely is. Alex can create a moral systematic and framework for society, but Dan cant, because he has gambled on the idea that everyone reads things as an anomalous authoritative monolith. Its silly.

@ApPersonaNonGrata

0 seconds ago

1. "Who says Im a Christian?" --- I can understand you wanting to distance yourself from the stigmas that entire religious domain has earned over thousands of years. Even my stepsister, who is a hardcore Christian fundamentalist, says she wants to get away from that labeling because of the stigma. She even goes so far as to say she's neither "religious" nor "in a religion". I have considered getting her a very nice dictionary for Christmas. "Lord knows" she could use it. But it honestly doesn't matter to me what she, you, or anyone else wants to do about labels. Like I explained in this video, all of your argumentative assertions and defenses only apply to Christian-religious ideologues. They have no relevance to anyone who merely appreciates bibles as literature, nor progressive metaphorists. ---------------- 2. "This has nothing to do with the defense of any religion," -- Say religious things ... expect someone to realize it. ----------------------------- 3. "[I'd rather talk about] the reasoning of, or from textual substance" --- Like any big city sewer system, there is a lot of substance there. You mentioned some of that substance. I then addressed the nature of that substance. If you want to say new things about that substance, feel free. ----------------------------- 4. "...whether it be an atheist, secular humanist, or religious person...and even if it be fictional or single subject texts." --- The other half of your thought process is missing there. I don't know what you wanted to say there. ----------------------------- 5. "Dan is an epistemological nihilist...which is to say that no human being can derive applicable relevance from any textual material." --- No. He isn't. Also, no. That's not what that term means. However, if you want to cite a specific video and time-stamp for something specific he has said, I'll address it. -------------------------------- 6. "Even athiests know the Bible, other religious texts, or even fictional works promotes certain perspectives on particular subjects...that people agree or disagree with." --- And so does Dan. For example, he knows that Rome existed. And he knows that Bibles claim Rome existed. It's just the stuff people find spiritual and personal "meaning" in ... that religious laymen, figures, and institutions are incorrectly assuming they "know" was what any writer "meant". If a reader is adequately literate in all relevant science, and then also adequately self-aware, then they realize "whatever meaning I get from these texts, relevant to virtues, values, or subjectively-defined enlightenment ... is what these texts are merely provoking me to think about. Whatever I "get" from these texts in any such context, is ultimately the cumulation of my own biology and formative life-experiences, and not necessarily (and probably not) what a writer meant." However, I don't want to be misunderstood here. So let's sharpen this to a finer point.

Bible writers never once mentioned "marriage". But that word is in there, many times, in every bible-version. Only upon learning enough about those cultures and languages ... do we discover *outside of a bible* enough to discover what those writers *meant*. They meant to advocate for child-sex-slave-traficking, where female children (and also actual women's entire value) comes from how useful they are *as property* (basically subhuman sexual livestock and beasts of burden)] for men's selfish interests. This, then, is how those female humans could prove righteous in the eyes of their god. Likewise, even their menfolk's entire value came also from how useful they proved to be for their god's own selfish interests (especially his ego). Their favorite deity was an entirely physical, super-powered male person who loved showing off his enormous junk.

He (a puppet-god human men created and spoke through) ... intended that as a way of life for all humans, even though "He" only really cared about their own religious tribes. Granted, an honest reader can discern what's really being said by implication and behavior. But even that requires a rare maturity of understanding about how human behaviors reveal mindset. No bible directly clarifies such matters on its own. They only "say so" once we go outside of a bible to build the essential cyphers; based on: What elite academics have discovered about: * those ancient languages and * cultures. And also * What we've learned about human biology's relationship to language. Only then do all the pieces fit to paint a coherent and consistent narrative about how those people reasoned and lived. In other words, Bibles "do not speak for themselves". ----------- 7. "You're just trying to force" -- You may feel force. But that wind blows from elsewhere. -------------------- 8. "your rehearsed" -- I'm not sure what you mean by this. ------------------------- 9. "and tailored arguments" -- All arguments should come properly tailored. -Else, we should not expect them to fit. ------------------------- 10. " onto my statements" --- If the tailoring fits, ... --------------------------- 11. " ... like Dan, you need me to be something Im not" -- Apparently, you need you to be something you're not. You also need Dan and I (respectively) to be something we aren't. Why is that? ----------------------------- 12 "...for your arguments to work." -- If you want arguments specific to non-religion, non-literalist, or otherwise non-dogmatic perspectives, ... then share some. And then notice we'll suddenly have nothing to disagree about. -------------------------------------- 13. " Dan isnt an expert on moral reasoning" -- What qualifies someone as an expert on moral reasoning? -------------------------------------- 14. but atheists like Alex Oconnor definitely is. " --- Almost everything he says is basic. Religionists just set a really low bar. ------------------------------------------ 15. "Alex can create a moral systematic and framework for society," --- For some of us, that's pretty easy to do. I'm glad Alex is one of us, in that regard. -------------------------------------------- 16. " but Dan cant," -- I don't know this. I don't know how you can know this either. -------------------------------------------- 17. "because he has gambled on the idea that everyone reads things as an: a.) anomalous -- b.) authoritative -- c.) monolith. -- I don't know what you're trying to say there. ------------------------------- 18. "Its silly." -- What's silly is holding up ancient and poorly preserved religious-fundamentalist texts, pretending those should be read as if they: a.) speak for themselves, b.) contain layers of deeply insightful and non-dogmatic meaning, and then c.) obsessing over one particular bible scholar's refusal to pretend the same thing. -All while 98% of what Dan says about all such matters is what 99% of all other qualified bible scholars say about those same issues. If you want to do a deep dive into ancient comic book adventures and hyper-violent cult manuals for personal inspiration, ... nobody's trying to stop you.