[quote]Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
Professor X wrote:
She isn’t that damn fine.
She seems to have some serious trouble understanding parts of the bible. (as in her discussion of Shibboleth used as a password during the building of King Solomon’s temple. Due to differences in language of the enemies surrounding them, the builders use the pronunciation of that word as a way to recognize their own…those who could not say it correctly were killed. This was war, not a tea party).
She’s pretty damn fine tho.
That’s very interesting. I guess she misunderstood that part.
Just that part? She apparently doesn’t understand allegory at all if she doesn’t get how “established” is being used in describing the planet Earth. Instead, she relates this to the rotation around the sun? Really? My guess is she has an equally hard time understanding any type of poetry as well unless it avoids metaphors completely.
I am also laughing at people apparently agreeing with her when any points she made in that clip just pointed out how much she didn’t understand.
Cute? Yes. Worthy of all of the praise in this thread? No way in hell.[/quote]
I actually take much of her video content to be pretty tongue-in-cheek in its analysis and delivery, Prof
The main and important point of her videos as I see it is simply to raise awareness regarding the opinion or sentiment some (many?) of us share on the topic of organized religion, and in particular the Big 3; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That sentiment being, of course, that we`re mighty fed up with that entire crock of shit. Your mileage may vary, of course.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
Professor X wrote:
She isn’t that damn fine.
She seems to have some serious trouble understanding parts of the bible. (as in her discussion of Shibboleth used as a password during the building of King Solomon’s temple. Due to differences in language of the enemies surrounding them, the builders use the pronunciation of that word as a way to recognize their own…those who could not say it correctly were killed. This was war, not a tea party).
She’s pretty damn fine tho.
That’s very interesting. I guess she misunderstood that part.
Just that part? She apparently doesn’t understand allegory at all if she doesn’t get how “established” is being used in describing the planet Earth. Instead, she relates this to the rotation around the sun? Really? My guess is she has an equally hard time understanding any type of poetry as well unless it avoids metaphors completely.
I am also laughing at people apparently agreeing with her when any points she made in that clip just pointed out how much she didn’t understand.
Cute? Yes. Worthy of all of the praise in this thread? No way in hell.[/quote]
At least one guy who doesn’t think only with his balls appeared in this thread!
Behind this cutie there are some people with a very clear agenda. She’s a propaganda tool whose the purpose is to brainwash teens and promote atheism.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
Professor X wrote:
She isn’t that damn fine.
She seems to have some serious trouble understanding parts of the bible. (as in her discussion of Shibboleth used as a password during the building of King Solomon’s temple. Due to differences in language of the enemies surrounding them, the builders use the pronunciation of that word as a way to recognize their own…those who could not say it correctly were killed. This was war, not a tea party).
She’s pretty damn fine tho.
That’s very interesting. I guess she misunderstood that part.
Just that part? She apparently doesn’t understand allegory at all if she doesn’t get how “established” is being used in describing the planet Earth. Instead, she relates this to the rotation around the sun? Really? My guess is she has an equally hard time understanding any type of poetry as well unless it avoids metaphors completely.
I am also laughing at people apparently agreeing with her when any points she made in that clip just pointed out how much she didn’t understand.
Cute? Yes. Worthy of all of the praise in this thread? No way in hell.[/quote]
Right on. She’s sort of funny but this is quite a facile treatment of a complex subject.
[quote]karlrichii wrote:
THANK YOU! yeh, i saw that vid yesterday and couldnt help but chuckle… she is VERY witty, but her understanding of hermeneutics, interpretation and plain old reading comprehension is laughable if she believes all of what she is saying.[/quote]
Doesn’t understand Hermeneutics?
Perhaps her comprehension of Hermeneutics is deep and she subscribes to the ideas of the major hermeneutic phenomenologists Martin Heidegger,Paul Ricoeur and Hans Georg Gadamer when they argue that “the text is independent of the author’s intent and original audience, and therefore the reader determines the meaning of the text”, or when they argue that “the meaning of the text goes beyond the author, and therefore the meaning is determined by the point where the horizons of the reader and the writer meet”.
Or maybe not.
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
karlrichii wrote:
THANK YOU! yeh, i saw that vid yesterday and couldnt help but chuckle… she is VERY witty, but her understanding of hermeneutics, interpretation and plain old reading comprehension is laughable if she believes all of what she is saying.
Doesn’t understand Hermeneutics?
Perhaps her comprehension of Hermeneutics is deep and she subscribes to the ideas of the major hermeneutic phenomenologists Martin Heidegger,Paul Ricoeur and Hans Georg Gadamer when they argue that “the text is independent of the author’s intent and original audience, and therefore the reader determines the meaning of the text”, or when they argue that “the meaning of the text goes beyond the author, and therefore the meaning is determined by the point where the horizons of the reader and the writer meet”.
Or maybe not.
[/quote]
hmm, she just might considering that she has seems to subscribe to a very post-modern way of thinking and the idea of the text itself containing no truth other than what the reader eisegetes into it would line up pretty well with that; but either way I don’t think those ideas are applicable to biblical hermeneutics, on second thought I don’t think she believes that because she is totally appalled by what she sees in scripture, if she felt that what she read was subjective based upon the reader I doubt it would cause such a reaction where she would waste so much of her time attacking it.
[quote]karlrichii wrote:
hmm, she just might considering that she has seems to subscribe to a very post-modern way of thinking and the idea of the text itself containing no truth other than what the reader eisegetes into it would line up pretty well with that; but either way I don’t think those ideas are applicable to biblical hermeneutics,[/quote]
on the contary the concept of hermeneutics has acquired at least two different (related but nevertheless distinct) meanings, both of which are in use today. First, in the older sense, Biblical hermeneutics may be understood as the theological principles of exegesis; in fact, it is often virtually synonymous with ‘principles of biblical interpretation’, or methodology of Biblical exegesis. Second, the more recent development is to understand the term ‘Biblical hermeneutics’ as the broader philosophy, linguistics, etc. underpinnings of interpretation. The question is posed: “How is understanding possible?” The rationale of this approach is that, while Scripture is ‘more than just an ordinary text’, it is in the first instance ‘text’, which human beings try to understand; in this sense, the principles of understanding any text apply to the Bible as well (regardless of whatever other specifically-theological principles one might want to consider in addition to that).
In this second sense, then, all aspects of philosophical, linguistic, etc. hermeneutics are considered to be applicable to the Biblical texts as well. There are obvious examples of this in the links between 20th century philosophy and Christian theology. For example, Rudolf Bultmann’s hermeneutical approach was strongly influenced by existentialism, and in particular by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger; and since the 1970s, the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer have had a wide-ranging influence on Biblical hermeneutics as developed by a wide range of Christian theologians. The French-American philosopher Rene Girard follows a similar trail.
[quote]on second thought I don’t think she believes that because she is totally appalled by what she sees in scripture, if she felt that what she read was subjective based upon the reader I doubt it would cause such a reaction where she would waste so much of her time attacking it.
[/quote]
It is precisely because it is subjective and based on the reader that she as a reader has such a reaction—it’s a subjective reaction and based on her reading.
That is why people do not have exactly the same reaction to the same words.
Some attack and some use the same words as their moral code.
[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
Professor X wrote:
elano wrote:
Professor X wrote:
She isn’t that damn fine.
She seems to have some serious trouble understanding parts of the bible. (as in her discussion of Shibboleth used as a password during the building of King Solomon’s temple. Due to differences in language of the enemies surrounding them, the builders use the pronunciation of that word as a way to recognize their own…those who could not say it correctly were killed. This was war, not a tea party).
She’s pretty damn fine tho.
That’s very interesting. I guess she misunderstood that part.
Just that part? She apparently doesn’t understand allegory at all if she doesn’t get how “established” is being used in describing the planet Earth. Instead, she relates this to the rotation around the sun? Really? My guess is she has an equally hard time understanding any type of poetry as well unless it avoids metaphors completely.
I am also laughing at people apparently agreeing with her when any points she made in that clip just pointed out how much she didn’t understand.
Cute? Yes. Worthy of all of the praise in this thread? No way in hell.
At least one guy who doesn’t think only with his balls appeared in this thread!
At least one guy who doesn’t think only with his balls appeared in this thread!
Behind this cutie there are some people with a very clear agenda. She’s a propaganda tool whose the purpose is to brainwash teens and promote atheism.
[/quote]
Its not her looks that attracted me but her agenda. As for referring to her videos as brainwashing`…whatever do you think MANDATORY Catholic courses in PUBLIC schools (at both the primary and secondary school level) is all about?
[quote]Protoculture wrote:
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins [/quote]
I could have sworned he used the term agnostics and not atheists?
Or was that in a different, but very alike quoute?
