One of you must be evil the, but I can't tell which one to shoot!

He can't be Arnold Schwarzenegger, because I am Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Are you really Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Ok, no more shuriken.

"Lucky for UF, right, right? I'm right, right?"

I'd love to stay and chat with you, needle head, but I'm not going to.

Yes.

Indeed.

Right.

Well, something to the effect, I think I was close enough for people who do have a problem as I described - on some sites you may not care if people know who you are, but not on all the sites you post for various reasons. I also use online pseudonyms so people related to me or whom I relate personal things cannot easily be traced by anyone stumbling on the things I say about them. I like to vent, I don't necessarily want the subjects of my venting to find out or have them associated with me if someone else is looking them up online, nor my own future employers, to be honest. I also tend not to want to cross streams - my atheism is not necessary for people to know where it's not relevant, and vice versa, so I generally use a different name for blogs or forums of a completely different subject. The gravatar utility makes that more challenging, but I've also stopped posting most places I used to, for the most part. Lucky for UF, right, right? I'm right, right?

"Someone like Ty considering a pseudonym for his books, who doesn't reveal his name to us to avoid his publishers finding out he posts here"

No, actually, I don't use my full name here because my boss's fans know it, and I don't want him being connected with my religion bashing.

Why, hello, Mr. Ty! Nice to see your smiling face!

I say gravitar it up babies!!! I like to put a face with a name. And JJ, I thought I'd miss my little pink tile, but nah-- it's ok. :D

Keep in mind, a lot of forums and blogs use gravatar, so your picture associated with the same email will appear nearly everywhere you have posted or continue to post. Some people are ok with being one multi-faceted person all over the internet, while some (like me) prefer to keep my communities pretty separate. Even the quilt squares are the same anyway, if other sites choose quilt squares from their menu for the generic non-gravatar, but some don't. Just an FYI for people who want to keep their association with sites like this separate from other sites they visit, for people who like to be a little more anonymous on some websites than others, not for people who hang it all out there, and don't mind if anyone associates all the things they've ever said together.

Someone like Ty considering a pseudonym for his books, who doesn't reveal his name to us to avoid his publishers finding out he posts here - check. Someone like elizabethdamaro, who presumably posts under her real name and leaves it to the snooper to find everything she's ever said, go for it. Gravatar is pretty netwide, whereas some other forums allow a person to upload their avatar pic directly for use only at that site. Just in case some people didn't realize, of course. I might as well get a gravatar since I don't post too many places anymore.

Get a pic! You can always rock the blue shuriken if you don't like how it turns out.

I'm debating getting a pic. I'm so used to my little blue shuriken, though. I'd miss it.

Sweet.

Here.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/forum/topic/where-can-i-find-the-option-to-upload-an-avatar?replies=22#post-9578

You have to head over to gravatar.com, get a free account (under the e-mail address that you used to identify yourself when you registered here). They will let you upload whatever pic you want to serve as your image.

Sweet. :)

So, will you tell me how I can get my pretty picture on here?

All right, entirely against my will, I am starting to like our drunken philosopher.

You beat me Elizabeth, I give in.

They try. But keep in mind, new translations hit the shelves annually (if not sooner).

I'm thinking I should sleep it off. Or drink it off. But alas....

If that doesn't make sense, it's because I'm hung over.

No, it made sense. Incidentally, about 4oz of pickle juice and a couple of Ibuprofen will give the average hangover a solid one-two punch. If you don't happen to have a jar of pickles, Gatorade is a decent substitute. (Powerade doesn't work for some reason, perhaps too much sugar.)

Christians who are overly attached to the plain text reading paradigm might counterargue that given the vagaries of language and translation, the only way a text could claim to arrogate the mantle of God-breathed and eternal is if God already used His mojo to guide the process, preventing the errors and changes that would make textual analysis necessary. After all, the tools of textual analysis in general are much younger than the text of many Bible translations.

"A believer could plausibly argue that since the text is purportedly breathed from an eternal source, it is meant to be applicable without regard to temporal or cultural context, and thus hermeneutics simply introduces corruptions and distortions to the plain text."

I'm not really seeing how they could argue that with any sort of logic. They concede the translation they currently read came from original manuscripts. The only way they could get around utilizing a proper hermeneutic would mean they'd have to toss the authority of the tradition of those texts.

"Since the book itself does not indicate which method is correct, how can you legitimately argue that a hermeneutical exegesis is more appropriate than a plain text reading?"

Even in plain reading, the book commands a reasonable study.

Besides, basic reading comprehension alone tells anyone who is reading a book even a century old that they have to consider proper rules in interpretation.

Christians already accept that the text is divided into history, poetry, prophesies, gospels, letters, etc... It's simply the next step to push them to concede they need to consider it is a very very ancient text.

In other words: They accept that it was originally Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew... so... if they deny that, then they aren't calling it god breathed to begin with.

If that doesn't make sense, it's because I'm hung over.

I've only read his/her stand alone novel and the engineer trilogy. It's been bugging me that I can't tell from writing style only, which I can often do. I'm leaning toward female, myself, but there is an interview with the publisher that suggests male. Not that I stalk. :P

Huh. Now that I looked it up, you're right, there is disagreement.

When I read the book I looked the author up on Wiki, and it says she's female. I went with that.

"KJ Parker is female."

I believe there is ongoing debate on that topic. Or am I wrong?

A believer could plausibly argue that since the text is purportedly breathed from an eternal source, it is meant to be applicable without regard to temporal or cultural context, and thus hermeneutics simply introduces corruptions and distortions to the plain text.

Since the book itself does not indicate which method is correct, how can you legitimately argue that a hermeneutical exegesis is more appropriate than a plain text reading?

"How can any believer argue with that"

There are many very ignorant theists in this world. Since, well, there are just ignorant folks all over the globe. A lot of believers won't apply a proper method to studying the texts appreciating they are ancient. They will use a "Cliff's Notes" version and just go with their "gut" or what they have been spoon fed.

But some, actually do utilize hermeneutics and dig deep to find answers for their questions regarding what the ancients said.

And the sweet scent of burnt wiener schnitzel was pleasing to the LORD...

KJ Parker is female. I read the first of her Engineer trilogy and liked it. It's fantasy I guess, but unconventional. Perhaps similar to China Mieville in setting.

Not the best book I've ever read but better than average. I'll probably get around to finishing the trilogy at some point.

I'm 2/4 German, and have often lamented the difficulty of explaining this fact.