Page 259 of 417 FirstFirst ... 159209249257258259260261269309359 ... LastLast
Results 6,451 to 6,475 of 10406

Thread: Religious Debate

  1. #6451
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

    The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God:

    Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

    "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing".
    "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."
    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

    Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

    Arthur Dent commented only 'Eurgh!' when first inserting the fish into his ear. It enabled him to understand Vogon Poetry - not necessarily a good thing.
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

  2. #6452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HueyNRolf View Post
    I shall not post in the religion thread.
    I shall not post in the religion thread.
    I shall not post in the religion thread.

    Or at least until someone presents a cohesive definition of god.
    If you set yourself as the judge of "cohesive" and you've decided no definition will ever be satisfactory to you, then you're just saying I refuse to listen as I've made up my own mind.

    The definition of God is quite cohesive enough for me. I think you're using the "definition" boondoggle to avoid discussion.

    The fact that it is a word in the dictionary is for me conclusive that the definition is cohesive.

    blaoohadark dark does not have a cohesive definition, and neither does camascran. But every word in the dictionary does have a cohesive definition.

    If you can't understand the cohesiveness, when the overwhelming majority of English speakers can, I'd say that was a deficiency in your ability to comprehend the language, not a deficiency in the definition.

    If I say that's a nice camascran, no one knows what I mean because we haven't agreed on a definition of that combination of sounds and letters. If I say, do you believe in God? 99.9% of English speakers know what I mean. If you're the .1%, then it's YOU that lacks cohesiveness, not the language, IMO.
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  3. #6453
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    If you set yourself as the judge of "cohesive" and you've decided no definition will ever be satisfactory to you, then you're just saying I refuse to listen as I've made up my own mind.
    Sigh. . .
    Alright then, more more time.
    Show me a cohesive definition.
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

  4. #6454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian-T View Post
    Ha...cheap shot. They are not Christians. They might call themselves Christians but heck....so does the Klu-Klux-Klan. Even you can figure that out by just reading the many teachings in the bible about loving our enemies. How can a God who says for us to love our enemies say He hates fags? God does NOT hate homosexuals regardless of what some people who call themselves Christians want to tell you. He hates the sin (lifestyle)...not the person.

    The problem with this stance is NO ONE follows all the tenets that are in the Bible.

    I'm going to pick just one verse at random.

    DEUTERONOMY 25:5 If the husband dies without impregnating the wife, then the "brother" of the dead husband MUST marry his wife. The female CANNOT marry anyone else, but ONLY her dead husband's brother .

    You can read it, and nit pick that interpretation, but I can give you 50 more that are equally absurd.

    Now, do you believe that if her husband dies, the wife has to marry the husbands brother?

    If not, I can then say, YOU"RE NOT A CHRISTIAN!

    So by that logic, anyone can say anyone else is not a Christian, because we can ALWAYS find something in the Bible you are not doing, or do not believe it.

    That's not to say you don't have good reasons for ignoring a particular passage and following others, everyone does.

    But who gets to be the final arbiter of deciding who is "Christian"? You, me, some Christian organization? Which Christian organization?

    I think the more accurate description is that there are good Christians, and bad Christians. They're both Christian, they both follow parts of the Bible, and neither follow the ENTIRE bible, as the example above shows.

    In reality if you teach a child to "hate the sin, and not he person" is that really never going result in bullying or ostracizing someone so that they kill themselves? Hate what gays do, but don't hate gays. Hate that pedophiles rape children, but don't hate pedophiles. Do most people actually do that? In reality if you teach someone to hate a "lifestyle" or behavior, they will also hate the person that does it, so you're teaching hate.

    I have no problem with hating pedophiles and rapists. What they do is atrocious. I do have a problem with hating gays. That is, IMO, nothing more than discrimination.

    I think that's why there is such a push back from the gay community. They aren't stupid. They know that hating the behavior equates with hating the person. Gays aren't discriminated against because people love them, and hate their behavior. They get discriminated against because people hate the behavior, and therefore hate them.

    Who is Christian? Anyone that uses the Bible as a basis for their religion. I don't think you can accurately say some are Christian and some aren't, since none of them follow everything in the entire bible, and all of them pick and choose which tenents their denomination is going to follow.

    This applies to Muslims as well. The people that chop women's off for not wearing a Hijab, are just as Muslim, as the people that believe women should have equal rights, but they follow the Koran. Both are using the Koran, and neither is following EVERYTHING in the Koran, rather they are choosing which parts to follow.

    This is why you have denominations in every religion. Because no one in that religion follows everything in the holy book ot the letter. So you get denominations based on which parts people think they should follow.
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  5. #6455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HueyNRolf View Post
    Sigh. . .
    Alright then, more more time.
    Show me a cohesive definition.
    Choose which ever one you like. Websters, wiki, dictionary.com, are all accepted by the majority of English speakers as cohesive definitions of "God".

    They all allow us to communicate with one another with mutually understood terms.

    Your argument that there's no "cohesive definition of God" is proof positive you are wrong.

    What are we arguing over? The definition of what? Bargalnook? Dakadank? Farfapool?

    The fact that we can argue over the particulars, means we're agreed on a basic concept to argue over. That basic concept IS the cohesive definition.

    If I say, well, God is red pancakes, and you said no, God obviously means drawing with a crayon, and everyone else we talked to came up with a similarly disparate idea of the meaning of the word which was nonsensical to everyone else, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no cohesive definition.

    But we aren't arguing over red pancakes or drawing with crayons are we?

    We both know what we are arguing over. The fact that you can say there is no cohesive definition, means you have some concrete idea of what it is you think is not defined.

    We're arguing over the same thing, which has a concept we both agree on. You're just arguing over the details, not that there is a word which has a meaning we agree on, and that word is "God".

    If you can look it up in the dictionary, it has a cohesive definition. It is a term the majority agrees on when they communicate has a meaning that everyone understands in some way.

    The only way it can NOT have a cohesive definition, if it is NOT in the dictionary.

    God is in the dictionary. It therefore, has an agreed upon meaning to English speakers. That is cohesive.
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  6. #6456
    Legend Janke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    there are good Christians, and bad Christians.
    So, who decides which is which? You, or that other guy?


  7. #6457
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    God is in the dictionary. It therefore, has an agreed upon meaning to English speakers. That is cohesive.
    Lets start with cohesion. Maybe that's what's confusing you:

    cohesion |kōˈhē zh ən|
    noun
    the action or fact of forming a united whole : the work at present lacks cohesion.

    The dictionary lists words in common use, they don't have to be cohesive.

    telepathy |təˈlepəθē|
    noun
    the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

  8. #6458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HueyNRolf View Post
    Lets start with cohesion. Maybe that's what's confusing you:

    cohesion |kōˈhē zh ən|
    noun
    the action or fact of forming a united whole : the work at present lacks cohesion.

    The dictionary lists words in common use, they don't have to be cohesive.

    telepathy |təˈlepəθē|
    noun
    the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.
    If a word is in common usage, it is defined.

    Cohesion is not a necessary element of definition.

    def·i·ni·tion
       [def-uh-nish-uhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
    2.
    the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries. An online dictionary resource, such as Dictionary.com, can give users direct, immediate access to the definitions of a term, allowing them to compare definitions from various dictionaries and stay up to date with an ever-expanding vocabulary.
    3.
    the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
    4.
    Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
    5.
    Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.
    Origin: 1350–1400; Middle English diffinicioun < Old French diffinition < Latin dēfīnītiōn- (stem of dēfīnītiō), equivalent to dēfīnīt(us) (see definite) + -iōn- -ion


    Where do you see a requirement of "cohesion" for a word to be defined?

    You can argue that the concept of "God" lacks cohesion. You cannot argue that "God" is not defined.

    Not defined means it is not in the dictionary.

    Grabelpung is not defined.

    Tomlyburg is not defined.

    "God" is defined. Look it up in Webster, wiki, dictionary.com, pick you source.

    If it is not described in any accepted source, then, and only then, is it not defined.

    You may not understand the definition. You may wish to clarify the definition, or dispute the definition.

    But you can only say it has no definition, if it is not in the dictionary. We would not even know what we were arguing about if there was no definition.

    I don't think blapapong is defined!

    You're right, it's not in the dictionary. It's not defined .

    I don't think "dog" is defined.

    Yep, it's defined. It's in the dictionary.

    Should the definition include wolves? Well, we can argue over that, but that's because there's a definition to argue over.

    We can argue over what "God" means or doesn't, only because it is defined.

    If it was not defined, then we couldn't argue over it.

    What's your argument to farablump is not a gontaramor?

    Your arguments are that the term "God" lacks this, or doesn't meet that requirement.

    The fact that you are asserting it lacks something, or doesn't meet some requirement means you are arguing over the definition, which means it's defined.

    What does verablane lack? You have no answer because its' not defined.

    If I define God you will start to tell me why that term is not adequately described for you to discuss it. That means it's defined, but you don't like the definition.

    Tell me what you don't like about verablane?

    There's nothing to like or dislike, no debate about whether it's adequately described or not, because it is not defined.

    There is a difference between adequately defined, or defined to your satisfaction, and a lack of definition.

    verablane is not defined.

    God is not defined to your satisfaction, or you don't agree with the definition.

    But you cannot, by yourself or with a small group, change the English language.

    For "God" to be undefined, it must be removed from the dictionary.
    Last edited by Gillvane; 2011 October 26th at 14:02.
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  9. #6459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janke View Post
    So, who decides which is which? You, or that other guy?
    We each decide for ourselves, of course.

    Some may think that putting Gays in jail would be the "Christian" thing to do. Others may marry Gays in their "Christian"
    Church.

    Both think they are doing the right thing. I know of no unbiased source to appeal to in order to determine which is right. If there is a God, he hasn't been particularly chatty with me. There's no scientific test we can do which will yield the correct answer.

    So invariably everyone is left to draw their own conclusions, and they will use many different methods to do that. Some will use logic, some will use religion, science, emotion, social justice, or a plethora of other ways to make their decision.

    I can tell you which ones I think are the good Christians, and which ones are the bad Christians. You may or may not agree, and the ones I label "bad" will definitely disagree with me.
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  10. #6460
    Legend Ian-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    The problem with this stance is NO ONE follows all the tenets that are in the Bible.

    I'm going to pick just one verse at random.

    DEUTERONOMY 25:5 If the husband dies without impregnating the wife, then the "brother" of the dead husband MUST marry his wife. The female CANNOT marry anyone else, but ONLY her dead husband's brother .

    You can read it, and nit pick that interpretation, but I can give you 50 more that are equally absurd.

    Now, do you believe that if her husband dies, the wife has to marry the husbands brother?

    If not, I can then say, YOU"RE NOT A CHRISTIAN!
    Sure. Why not. It might be absurd to you but it's a set of rules that THOSE people had to abide by. It has no bearing at all on how a Christian is supposed to live today. Those rules were for a certain people that lived during a certain time period. You must remember.... Christianity starts in the New Testament. The people your quoted text is referring to are Hebrews...and it was for Hebrews. A chosen people. Everyone else were the Gentiles....who had nothing to do with those rules or customs. So, if you are going to quote the Old Testament to make a point againts Christianity....you really should come correct.

    And...between you and me....I can pick out a heck of alot of things that seems absurd in the bible. Seriously. But...God is Good all the time!!!
    Last edited by Ian-T; 2011 October 26th at 17:04.
    No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein

  11. #6461
    Tropical Legend cgbier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saipan, USA
    Posts
    12,086

    Default

    DEUTERONOMY 25:5 If the husband dies without impregnating the wife, then the "brother" of the dead husband MUST marry his wife. The female CANNOT marry anyone else, but ONLY her dead husband's brother
    ...and additionally to Ian's post: You have to at the bible in the social context. If you do so, and take the time into consideration, a lot of these laws make actually logical sense. In this case, and with marriage in general, it is about protection of inheritance and, therefore, possession. If a childless widow re-marries, the property is lost to the family of the deceased. Having that woman marry her brother in law keeps the family possessions together. With celibacy and "gay marriage" the case is the same. Priests and monks should not have kids to protect the church's possessions (that priest and monks most-often brought into the church as dowry themselves). Gays can't have kids, so inheritance will be a problem.

    Gil, you had some very comprehensive argumentation there
    "It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"

  12. #6462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian-T View Post
    Sure. Why not. It might be absurd to you but it's a set of rules that THOSE people had to abide by. It has no bearing at all on how a Christian is supposed to live today. Those rules were for a certain people that lived during a certain time period. You must remember.... Christianity starts in the New Testament. The people your quoted text is referring to are Hebrews...and it was for Hebrews. A chosen people. Everyone else were the Gentiles....who had nothing to do with those rules or customs. So, if you are going to quote the Old Testament to make a point againts Christianity....you really should come correct.

    And...between you and me....I can pick out a heck of alot of things that seems absurd in the bible. Seriously. But...God is Good all the time!!!
    You're pretty much making my point.

    You're interpreting the bible. You're not following it literally, but telling me why you think your interpretation is reasonable, makes sense, is the one that is correct, etc.

    Nonetheless, it's an interpretation. The fact that it's reasonable doesn't lessen the fact that it is an interpretation.

    Other people use the bible and make different interpretations, like Fags go to hell, or God wants abortion outlawed in the US. They can give me reasons why they think their interpretation is correct and yours is not.

    You are both doing the EXACT SAME THING, interpreting the Bible.

    How would I determine which interpretation, using the same source, is "Christian" and which is not?

    Should I label it "Christian" when I think the interpretation is reasonable, and not Christian when I think the interpretation is not reasonable? What if I think your interpretation is not reasonable? Does that mean you aren't a Christian?

    You can't point to the Bible and say, well, I follow EVERYTHING in the Bible EXACTLY like it's written, which makes me Christian, and everyone that doesn't do that is not Christian. Because NO ONE does that. Not with the New Testament, or the Old Testament.

    Here's a list of 1,050 commands in the New Testament to obey. No one obeys all of them or even tries to obey all of them, as you can easily see for yourself. Each person or denomination has an INTERPRETATION of how to follow the Bible so that you are being a good "Christian". You've given me some of your interpretations in this post.

    http://www.puritan-books.com/books/pdf/new_testament_commands.pdf

    Everyone claiming to be Christian, follows a different set of rules, their personal, or denominational, interpretation of teh Bible.

    What makes one interpretation "Christian" and the other not Christian?

    The answer cannot be, well what Jesus really meant was...

    That's an interpretation. The question is what makes YOUR interpretation "Christian" and the other guys interpretation, NOT Christian?
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  13. #6463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cgbier View Post
    ...and additionally to Ian's post: You have to at the bible in the social context. If you do so, and take the time into consideration, a lot of these laws make actually logical sense. In this case, and with marriage in general, it is about protection of inheritance and, therefore, possession. If a childless widow re-marries, the property is lost to the family of the deceased. Having that woman marry her brother in law keeps the family possessions together. With celibacy and "gay marriage" the case is the same. Priests and monks should not have kids to protect the church's possessions (that priest and monks most-often brought into the church as dowry themselves). Gays can't have kids, so inheritance will be a problem.

    Gil, you had some very comprehensive argumentation there
    Gays can, and frequently do, have children, often from previous hetero marriages. Old people that are well past their child bearing years, frequently get married adn there's no prescription in the bible against it. There's nothing to my knowledge saying a sterile woman is forbidden from marrying, so that logic doesn't hold up.

    I don't think there's anything Biblical about protecting the Church's possessions. There's certainly a motivation for a large and wealthy organization like the Catholic Church to keep their members possessions, but I don't recall any Biblical passage about that.

    Look at what you're doing. You're putting something in to social context, to make logical sense out of it. What is that? It's an INTERPRETATION.

    What makes YOUR interpretation "Christian" and the other guys interpretation of the Bible NOT Christian?

    Are you going to claim it's because your interpretation is correct, and the other guy is wrong? He will claim the same thing.
    "beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
    - Roger Corman

  14. #6464
    Infallible (& formerly known as Krute) Jim E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    DEUTERONOMY 25:5 If the husband dies without impregnating the wife, then the "brother" of the dead husband MUST marry his wife. The female CANNOT marry anyone else, but ONLY her dead husband's brother .

    You can read it, and nit pick that interpretation, but I can give you 50 more that are equally absurd.

    Now, do you believe that if her husband dies, the wife has to marry the husbands brother?

    If not, I can then say, YOU"RE NOT A CHRISTIAN!
    Oh, dear!

    I think maybe before y'all labour over the definition of god, you need to first find out the definition of a christian!

    A christian is called a christian because he believes that the fella called Jesus, who rather gamely told the Jews that he was the "christ", was actually the almighty god that those same Jews worshipped.

    And having said that and got away with it, Jesus declared that the old religion that "god gave to Moses" was now more or less out of its Beta version and that he represented the release version... with fixes.

    Anyone who took him at his word on this claim was then entitled to consider himself a christian. As a christian, that person no longer was obliged to follow all the rigamarole of the traditional Jewish laws and proscriptions and edicts, ad infinitum. He could consider himself as being back "in god's good books" simply by taking onboard what Jesus had told him.

    So, if Ian or anyone else who declares himself a Christian doesn't subscribe to all the old traditional Jewish laws, that simply means that he most definitely IS a Christian! Not the other way around, Gill.

    Just sayin', in the interests of accuracy.

    .

  15. #6465
    Legend Ian-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    You're pretty much making my point.

    You're interpreting the bible. You're not following it literally, but telling me why you think your interpretation is reasonable, makes sense, is the one that is correct, etc.

    Nonetheless, it's an interpretation. The fact that it's reasonable doesn't lessen the fact that it is an interpretation.


    "Following it literally?" Hmm...it seems to me what you are attempting here is the epitome of a straw man fallacy, Let me ask you this.... where on earth do people get the idea that a Christian is to "literally" follow everything that's in the bible? I mean really though.. try to make sense out of what I'm saying here... Alnog with the good, just about every wicked way of mankind is also mentioned in the bible. I'm talking wickedness done by every race and culture. So...um....do you really think to be a Christian I must murder, steal, rape, get high, fornicate etc, etc? Or does it make more sense to state the you seem to be missing the point entirely?

    I'm not interpreting anything. Much of what is stated about a people or a culture in the bible are historical facts. No interpretation necessary.

    For me...the bottoom line about the Old Testament is showing us our issues that we still have not learned from to this day. ALL of those people in the bible had some serious issues. The premise is to show us that...they were not unlike us. As a matter of fact...aint-nuthin-new-unda-da-sun. If you can't see that then...I-aint-mad-atcha.

    By the way...for the most part..Christians are some really screwed up people. Probably worse than most atheist on this board. If they were not....then why would they need God? Does a man who is well need a doctor? Marinate on that for a minute.
    No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein

  16. #6466
    Legend Ian-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    That's an interpretation. The question is what makes YOUR interpretation "Christian" and the other guys interpretation, NOT Christian?
    Here is some help to get you an answer:

    The scripture is God's Word. But some of the interpretations derived from it are not. There are many cults and Christian groups that claim their interpretations are correct. Too often, however, the interpretations not only differ dramatically but are clearly contradictory. This does not mean that the Bible is a confusing document. Rather, the problem lies in those who interpret and the methods they use.
    Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God's word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. This does not mean that accurate understanding of God's Word is impossible. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason. Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God's Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God's word means and how to apply it.


    2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."


    CITE
    No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein

  17. #6467
    Legend Ian-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,633

    Default

    aww man...how did I get here?

    I can't leave this topic alone...I need intervention. AAAGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
    No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein

  18. #6468
    Infallible (& formerly known as Krute) Jim E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian-T View Post
    aww man...how did I get here?

    I can't leave this topic alone...I need intervention. AAAGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
    Lol! Yeah, a word to the wise, Ian. Might be best to escape before the indians start circling the wagons again.

    To quote Obi Wan.. "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting".

    .

  19. #6469
    Tropical Legend cgbier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saipan, USA
    Posts
    12,086

    Default

    You're putting something in to social context, to make logical sense out of it.
    Exactly. There is no other way to see that. Look at all the holy books. What are they? Laws, behavioral guidelines, social rules, ... with some deity added to give them some weight.

    I don't say my interpretation is right, and it is not necessarily coming from me. History books can be good teachers....
    "It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"

  20. #6470
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillvane View Post
    If I define God you will start to tell me why that term is not adequately described for you to discuss it. That means it's defined, but you don't like the definition.
    Or I don't understand the definition. I gave telepathy as an example of something in the dictionary which is not cohesively defined:

    telepathy |təˈlepəθē|
    noun
    the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.

    Here's another method of communication:

    telephone |ˈteləˌfōn|
    noun
    1 a system that converts acoustic vibrations to electrical signals in order to transmit sound, typically voices, over a distance using wire or radio.
    • an instrument used as part of such a system, typically a single unit including a handset with a transmitting microphone and a set of numbered buttons by which a connection can be made to another such instrument.

    Can you not see the difference?
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

  21. #6471
    Tropical Legend cgbier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saipan, USA
    Posts
    12,086

    Default

    Tele = far, pathy = feeling, suffering or emotion.
    You can get the rest together yourself.
    "It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"

  22. #6472
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cgbier View Post
    Tele = far, pathy = feeling, suffering or emotion.
    You can get the rest together yourself.
    That's what it does, but what is it?
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

  23. #6473
    Legend Janke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    There's a difference between concrete nouns and abstract nouns, the latter are harder to define unambiguously.

    God is an abstract noun. Isn't that a good enough definition?


  24. #6474
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janke View Post
    There's a difference between concrete nouns and abstract nouns, the latter are harder to define unambiguously.

    God is an abstract noun. Isn't that a good enough definition?
    But it turns out that god is supernatural.

    supernatural |ˌsoōpərˈna ch (ə)rəl|
    adjective
    (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature : a supernatural being.

    Based on this definition, one would need knowledge beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature to participate in a rational discussion about god.
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

  25. #6475
    Legend HueyNRolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    12,169

    Default

    rational |ˈra sh ənl; ˈra sh nəl|
    adjective
    1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic : I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation.
    • (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically : Andrea's upset—she's not being very rational.
    See note at sensible .
    • endowed with the capacity to reason : man is a rational being.
    2 Mathematics (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities that are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. When expressed as a decimal, a rational number has a finite or recurring expansion.
    The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •