In short, people interpret what they read based upon preconceived notions in such a way that is most favorable to their position

Understood every word and I applaud you.
In short, people interpret what they read based upon preconceived notions in such a way that is most favorable to their position…. just written in Linguistic terms.

And you are correct 100% about multiple viewpoints: I only claimed an exclusive stance as a starting point for discussion, which it has succeeded in doing. (we’re talking). I took a argumentative stance and made an bombastic claim, just to see if there were listeners and if there were, to see if they’re up for a discussion over, well, exactly what we’re talking about.

It’s always important to check one’s own bias with any reading, as well as the bias of the source material. Think of how many people *still* use Draper as a source of history when historians generally don’t. While for me, Draper’s clear agenda (I don’t think he was ever subtle about it) has been successfully generally discredited among modern historians, nonetheless, there are those who accept it.

And so, overlapping views, each with biases, including my own, whatever they may be.

If you like metaphors as much as me, Simon Albright – and it’s likely you do, read this quick 10 page article on how metaphors lead and mislead and their dangers. I also have a great one on the dangers of analogies by a physics professor for other physics professors… but that’s not as applicable here.

It supports entirely what you’re saying, although it does not support any particular claim as to what the passage was *really* talking about.

It’s called Metaphors we are Led By, written by an Air Force professor – really easy to read. His four-square chart on Sensemaking alone is simply marvelous.

http://www.au.af.mil/…/milreview/paparone_metaphors.pdf

By the way, there’s a flaw in your logic:
” because they are decoding the text in a way which retains the absurdity of having a loving god want to bash the brain’s of babies out on rocks.”

Here’s the problem: Everything from “absurdity” onwards comes from no place.

You made a good argument about interpreting to fit the position, but what of the absurdity of lifting words out of a historical context, utilizing modern sensibilities towards, and then BACK PROJECTING its meaning?


Seems more logical that, let’s say, a 1st or 2nd century interpretation might be a little closer to accuracy than one done 20 centuries later. No?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 3 = four

Leave a Reply