Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 356

Thread: History of Christianity

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    220
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I've read every article on Jesusneverexisted.com, and Kenneth Humphreys is very weak in presenting his case for the non-existence of Jesus in public debates. I honestly believe that some people, whether justified or not, have such a deep hatred for Christianity that Jesus the man couldn't possibly have ever existed.

    The three books I recommend on understanding the real Jesus are Jesus Before Christianity by Albert Nolan, The Politics of Jesus by John Yoder and The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. When you come to recognize Jesus as a peaceful dissident who gave up his life for his ideals, you might begin to love him, whether or not you call him your god.
    www.schoolsforchiapas.org/

    I am a pacifist. I am a Christian anarchist. In Russia the enemies of the free worker are the bureaucrats and the communists. In the United States, the enemies of the free workers are the bureaucrats and the capitalists. I don't believe in any government at all, and I am against violence of all kinds. - Ammon Hennacy

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    11,337
    Organisation
    Judean People's Front crack suicide squad!
    Rep Power
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Invader:



    And yet, we have no physical evidence that this 'source' exists. Now, I am not denying it did, but I was just concerned that you were putting it on the same level of reliability as sources we have that do exist in hard copy.

    And there are other explanations for the similarities you mention.

    And yet, we have no physical evidence that this 'source' exists.
    Again, and? Like i said we are dealing with 2,000 year old sources. Unsupprisingly 2,000 year old sources often do not survive, especially when they are the product of a religious cult that actually burned a large number of its own writings.

    The fact is it would be particularly astonishing if the authors of Luke and Matthew managed to come up with the exact same wording in number of passages independently. Secondly we have references to such a document having existed. The fact is that while there maybe some bible scholars who doubt the 'Q hypothesis' they haven't made a believable counter-hypothesis in my opinion. For example, one of the prominant thesis' is that Matthew was, counter to all the evidence, the first Gospel and the similarities in Luke and Mark come from that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa
    Now, I am not denying it did, but I was just concerned that you were putting it on the same level of reliability as sources we have that do exist in hard copy.
    In what context? If such a document did indeed exist, logically it must predate the existing Gospels, because thery borrowed from it.
    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    - Hanlon's Razor

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Invader:

    Again, and?
    Well, a non-extant, assumed source cannot carry the same authoriity as an extant source.

    Unsupprisingly 2,000 year old sources often do not survive, especially when they are the product of a religious cult that actually burned a large number of its own writings.
    But, this might never have existed.

    The fact is it would be particularly astonishing if the authors of Luke and Matthew managed to come up with the exact same wording in number of passages independently. Secondly we have references to such a document having existed. The fact is that while there maybe some bible scholars who doubt the 'Q hypothesis' they haven't made a believable counter-hypothesis in my opinion. For example, one of the prominant thesis' is that Matthew was, counter to all the evidence, the first Gospel and the similarities in Luke and Mark come from that.
    I am sorry, what 'references'?

    And, conservative Christians explain the similarities you mention in other ways.

    Set against the non-extant nature of 'Q', this is no more nor no less plausible.

    Of course, if 'Q' is ever discovered, all well and good.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Howard:

    I've read every article on Jesusneverexisted.com, and Kenneth Humphreys is very weak in presenting his case for the non-existence of Jesus in public debates. I honestly believe that some people, whether justified or not, have such a deep hatred for Christianity that Jesus the man couldn't possibly have ever existed.
    Sure we hate Christianity (in my case, I used to be one), but if Jesus never lived, and there is no hard evidence he did, we can hardly hate him.

    And thanks for the books, but I'd rather watch my toenails grow.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spilteeth:

    Thanks for all that, but much of it is wasted effort.

    I explained how the word 'Divine' does indeed generate meaning, according to the current theory of sociolinguistics.
    Which 'current theory' for there are many?

    And what sense of 'meaning' do you mean (i.e., 'intend'), for there are many; this is what I posted in reply to BTB:

    (1) Personal Significance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

    (2) Evaluative import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

    (3) Point or purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

    (4) Linguistic meaning: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

    (5) Aim or intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

    (6) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

    (7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain", or "Those spots mean you have measles."

    (8) Reference: as in "I meant him over there", or "'The current president of the USA' means somebody different at least once every eight years."

    (9) Artistic or literary import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity."

    (10) An indication of conversational focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?"

    (11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in "I mean it, I really do want to go on the march!", or "The demonstrators really mean to stop this war."

    (12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in "It means the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

    (13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play", or "That gesture means those pickets think you are a scab."

    (14) Import or significance: as in "Part of the meaning of this play is to change our view of drama", or "The real meaning of the agreement is that the bosses have at last learnt their lesson."

    (15) Speakers' meaning: as in "When you trod on her foot and she said 'Well done!' she in fact meant the exact opposite."

    (16) Communicative meaning: as in "You get my meaning", or "My last letter should tell you what I meant", or "We have just broken their secret code; the last message meant this..."

    (17) Explanation: as in "When the comrade said the strike isn't over what she meant was that we can still win!"

    Of course, some of the above meanings of 'meaning' overlap.
    This is taken from here:

    http://************************/page_13_03.htm

    I suspect you mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6) or (8).

    I do not doubt that theological words 'mean' (as in (1) or (2)) something for you, and others, what I doubt is that they 'mean' anything in sense (4), (6) or (8).

    And that is why much of what you have posted is wasted effort.

    Now, you asked me to read what you posted carefully, but the same could be said to you:

    what is this framework that leads you to reject the dictionary definition? Bob gave you the meaning of Divine according to the dictionary and you rejected it.
    Where have I rejected it?

    1) I did not bring up the subject of definition, that was BTB.

    2) All I said in reply was that dictionaries define meaningless theological words in terms of other meaningless theological terms, and that the entire collection of such words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

    So, I am not rejecting these definitions, just pointing out they are empty definitions. You and BTB are quite at liberty to accept these empty definitions, that is up to you. I neither accept nor reject them, since they are not definitions, but meaningless strings of words.

    If you can give me a definition of 'god', for example, that does not contain meaningless words (in the senses I indicated), I might be inclined to accept it, but I have been asking this question of 'god'-botherers for longer than most RevLefters have been alive -- no luck so far.

    Moreover, I have read the attempts to tell us what 'god' is in the Bible, the works of Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann..., no luck there either.

    Perhaps you can do what no one else in the entire history of Christianity has been able to do -- who knows? Maybe you are the next Karl Barth...

    This is true for ALL language and has been accepted as such since structuralism has been outdated.
    I am sorry, but there are no such universally accepted truths of the sort you mention in Linguistics; you are just trying to bully acceptance out of me, thinking I do not know enough Linguistics.

    Well I do, and you aren't (succeeding in bullying me).

    Metaphor = an act of substitution of one term for another and thus corresponded to the paradigmatic axis, or the axis of selection. All the world's a stage
    Metaphor is far, far more complex than this one-liner suggests -- can I recommend you read a book by my PhD supervisor on this:

    Roger White, The Structure of Metaphor (Blackwell, 1996).

    I won't comment on much else that you have posted since it does not seem to be relevant to what I said; however I will comment on the following:

    the relationship between a word - its concept or idea - and the thing to which it refers, the referent.
    This treats all words as if they were names or singular designating expressions; but this is incorrect.

    What do the following refer to: if, but, and, nothing, inadvertently, plausible, refer, name...?

    Check these out:

    http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt3.html

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/wit...eory_aug08.htm

    Recall, I am not committed to accepting everything these two say; I am only posting these links to counter your (implied) contention that all words refer to something.

    But, even if you were right, we still have no idea what the word 'god' refers to, since, according to the Bible (see below), we can form no concept of 'god' -- and if the word 'god' works as a name, we have, as yet, no idea what it means -- in the sense of what it refers to, if anything.

    In that case, until someone can reveal to us the exact nature of 'god', or even a rough guide to what it is (without using yet more meaningless terms), 'god' remains a meaningless term.

    However, that words cannot refer to specific phenomena in the material world : if I speak the word 'tree' or 'chair' we will all immediately conjure up conceptions of trees or chairs, but these images do not actually refer to a specific tree or chair in the material world. Instead, we are all thinking about different trees and chairs. What the word 'tree' refers to is not a 'thing' - a real tree - but a concept of a tree.

    The word does not refer to a specific referent at all, but only to a concept
    So, when you say, for example, "That chair over there is up for sale" you are not referring to an actual chair that is up for sale, but a concept; is that it?

    In that case, what do you propose to take home, if you buy that chair? A concept?

    I think not.

    Not even Saussure was that dopey.

    I'm afraid you are getting rather desperate in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

    But, anyway, even if you were right, until you tell us what the concept 'god' is, the word 'god' is still meaningless. And if 'god' is just a concept, then he does not exist outside the minds of believers. I think us atheists can live with that.

    And even if you were to say "The concept of god is this and that...", that will not help, since such a sentence would be meaningless itself, since it contains an empty term, namely, 'god'.

    This is the permanent bind you lot are in: since not even you know what/who/where... 'god' is, you are forced to use this empty term.

    So, any attempt to explain what it means must fall at the first hurdle, since not even you lot knows what it means (in the sense of 'mean' I indicated earlier).

    You have no idea what 'entity' you are referring to, or even if 'god' is an entity.

    And this is a unique bind that relates only to theological language, since, even believers admit they have no precise idea what 'god' is -- and not even a vague idea!

    This is what the Bible says:

    To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
    Isaiah 40:18.

    The implication is clear, there is nothing to which we can compare 'him'.

    So us non-believers stand no chance.

    And that means that the phrase 'the concept of god' is meaningless too, since it contains an empty term, namely 'god'.

    Alas, short of blaspheming (that is claiming to know the precise (or even the vague) nature of 'god'), there is no way out for you 'god'-botherers.

    And, if you were to tell me: "The nature of god is this or that...", you are still in a bind, since, that sentence contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

    We still haven't a clue what you are referring to -- and neither have you!

    You might as well be using the word 'schmod' for all the good it does.

    And, thanks for all the Saussure stuff, but I reject his confused work on this, since he too thought all words were names.

    Anyway, you quote him as if he were the first and last word on this; his theory is only accepted by certain theorists, and by no means the majority.

    So, as I said, much of your post was wasted effort.

    So, in that sense, no word, theological or not, can be defined outside of context/individually.
    Who said they could? Recall I said the entire collection of theological words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms. That is not so with ordinary words.

    Anyway, we still have no idea, Saussure or not, what or who you are referring to when you use the word 'god' -- and neither have you.

    So yes, 'divine' and 'god' just like 'tomato' or 'chair' can never have a fixed absolute meaning.
    Whether or not ordinary words have a fixed or 'absolute' meaning, at least they have a meaning (be it temporary or contextual -- indeed, many even have a reference). Theological words in comparison have none at all (in the senses I indicated), and refer to nothing at all (that you can specify without the use of other empty phrases).

    In the case of 'god', and 'divine', and even if Saussure were right (which I deny), these 'signifiers' cannot work as signifiers, since what they 'signify' ('god', or 'the divine', or the related concepts) can only be accessed by us through the use of language, and just as soon as you do that, you are forced to use empty terms once more.

    So, even if Saussure were 100% right in what he says, his ideas would still be of no use to you.

    We still do not know what 'god' refers to.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  7. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spilteeth:

    Thanks for all that, but much of it is wasted effort.



    Which 'current theory' for there are many?

    And what sense of 'meaning' do you mean (i.e., 'intend'), for there are many; this is what I posted in reply to BTB:



    This is taken from here:

    http://************************/page_13_03.htm

    I suspect you mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6) or (8).

    I do not doubt that theological words 'mean' (as in (1) or (2)) something for you, and others, what I doubt is that they 'mean' anything in sense (4), (6) or (8).

    And that is why much of what you have posted is wasted effort.

    Now, you asked me to read what you posted carefully, but the same could be said to you:



    Where have I rejected it?

    1) I did not bring up the subject of definition, that was BTB.

    2) All I said in reply was that dictionaries define meaningless theological words in terms of other meaningless theological terms, and that the entire collection of such words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms.

    So, I am not rejecting these definitions, just pointing out they are empty definitions. You and BTB are quite at liberty to accept these empty definitions, that is up to you. I neither accept nor reject them, since they are not definitions, but meaningless strings of words.

    If you can give me a definition of 'god', for example, that does not contain meaningless words (in the senses I indicated), I might be inclined to accept it, but I have been asking this question of 'god'-botherers for longer than most RevLefters have been alive -- no luck so far.

    Moreover, I have read the attempts to tell us what 'god' is in the Bible, the works of Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann..., no luck there either.

    Perhaps you can do what no one else in the entire history of Christianity has been able to do -- who knows? Maybe you are the next Karl Barth...



    I am sorry, but there are no such universally accepted truths of the sort you mention in Linguistics; you are just trying to bully acceptance out of me, thinking I do not know enough Linguistics.

    Well I do, and you aren't (succeeding in bullying me).



    Metaphor is far, far more complex than this one-liner suggests -- can I recommend you read a book by my PhD supervisor on this:

    Roger White, The Structure of Metaphor (Blackwell, 1996).

    I won't comment on much else that you have posted since it does not seem to be relevant to what I said; however I will comment on the following:



    This treats all words as if they were names or singular designating expressions; but this is incorrect.

    What do the following refer to: if, but, and, nothing, inadvertently, plausible, refer, name...?

    Check these out:

    http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt3.html

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/wit...eory_aug08.htm

    Recall, I am not committed to accepting everything these two say; I am only posting these links to counter your (implied) contention that all words refer to something.

    But, even if you were right, we still have no idea what the word 'god' refers to, since, according to the Bible (see below), we can form no concept of 'god' -- and if the word 'god' works as a name, we have, as yet, no idea what it means -- in the sense of what it refers to, if anything.

    In that case, until someone can reveal to us the exact nature of 'god', or even a rough guide to what it is (without using yet more meaningless terms), 'god' remains a meaningless term.



    So, when you say, for example, "That chair over there is up for sale" you are not referring to an actual chair that is up for sale, but a concept; is that it?

    In that case, what do you propose to take home, if you buy that chair? A concept?

    I think not.

    Not even Saussure was that dopey.

    I'm afraid you are getting rather desperate in your attempt to defend the indefensible.

    But, anyway, even if you were right, until you tell us what the concept 'god' is, the word 'god' is still meaningless. And if 'god' is just a concept, then he does not exist outside the minds of believers. I think us atheists can live with that.

    And even if you were to say "The concept of god is this and that...", that will not help, since such a sentence would be meaningless itself, since it contains an empty term, namely, 'god'.

    This is the permanent bind you lot are in: since not even you know what/who/where... 'god' is, you are forced to use this empty term.

    So, any attempt to explain what it means must fall at the first hurdle, since not even you lot knows what it means (in the sense of 'mean' I indicated earlier).

    You have no idea what 'entity' you are referring to, or even if 'god' is an entity.

    And this is a unique bind that relates only to theological language, since, even believers admit they have no precise idea what 'god' is -- and not even a vague idea!

    This is what the Bible says:



    Isaiah 40:18.

    The implication is clear, there is nothing to which we can compare 'him'.

    So us non-believers stand no chance.

    And that means that the phrase 'the concept of god' is meaningless too, since it contains an empty term, namely 'god'.

    Alas, short of blaspheming (that is claiming to know the precise (or even the vague) nature of 'god'), there is no way out for you 'god'-botherers.

    And, if you were to tell me: "The nature of god is this or that...", you are still in a bind, since, that sentence contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

    We still haven't a clue what you are referring to -- and neither have you!

    You might as well be using the word 'schmod' for all the good it does.

    And, thanks for all the Saussure stuff, but I reject his confused work on this, since he too thought all words were names.

    Anyway, you quote him as if he were the first and last word on this; his theory is only accepted by certain theorists, and by no means the majority.

    So, as I said, much of your post was wasted effort.



    Who said they could? Recall I said the entire collection of theological words forms a self-referential set of meaningless terms. That is not so with ordinary words.

    Anyway, we still have no idea, Saussure or not, what or who you are referring to when you use the word 'god' -- and neither have you.



    Whether or not ordinary words have a fixed or 'absolute' meaning, at least they have a meaning (be it temporary or contextual -- indeed, many even have a reference). Theological words in comparison have none at all (in the senses I indicated), and refer to nothing at all (that you can specify without the use of other empty phrases).

    In the case of 'god', and 'divine', and even if Saussure were right (which I deny), these 'signifiers' cannot work as signifiers, since what they 'signify' ('god', or 'the divine', or the related concepts) can only be accessed by us through the use of language, and just as soon as you do that, you are forced to use empty terms once more.

    So, even if Saussure were 100% right in what he says, his ideas would still be of no use to you.

    We still do not know what 'god' refers to.

    Wow. I guess that really was a wasted effort. I was trying to say the opposite.
    I was saying Saussure got it upside down and was wrong, not right. I was describing the framework I was using.

    I'll ask for the 3rd time - what framework you using?
    I went to all the trouble of describing the linguistic theory beginning with Saussure and showing how the theory has evolved to try and say the framework IS INADEQUATE FOR ATTACHING MEANING TO GOD.

    OK, so you don't "reject" the dic. def of divine, you just think its meaningless. OK.

    "And what sense of 'meaning' do you mean (i.e., 'intend'), for there are many; this is what I posted in reply to BTB"

    UMMMMMM I know - I quoted you and told you I was answering the 2 specific ways your using the word meaning......What the heck? You didn't even read my post?

    "Recall, I am not committed to accepting everything these two say; I am only posting these links to counter your (implied) contention that all words refer to something"

    No, I think I explained why this in fact CAN'T be true.

    In fact, I disagree with 2 other things you said, but lets let it go.

    You're thinking, in a way I tried to liken to Saussure's, is upside down.

    You start with the idea of 'god doesn't exist' instead of being objective.

    Your question is 'meaningless' since it fails to frame itself in a way that produces meaning - ie apprehend the subject 'god'

    Lets test out the two hypothesis.

    It is true (as you say) that divine is meaningless and the words used to describe them only if god does not exists, so then lets posit the opposite : god does exist. Now those words are not self-referential and they are meaningful.

    So then we need a def of god, the Pauline one, as you mentioned is abstract - "beyond definition, god is love etc"

    Since god cannot be defined the word god and divine is, as you say, by definition meaningless.

    My entire post was to simply say that the framework your using cannot judge the meaning of god or divine, it is the wrong tool.
    Yes, you cannot actually talk about god and be senscical, within your framework.
    You must frame it in a different way if you would like to understand how god generates meaning.

    So, is god and divine 'meaningfull' in the 2 ways you are using meaning.

    NO.

    Again, you are correct, god and divine are meaningless terms in that context.
    I thought that was pretty well implied.

    (although i thought i explained how the average Joe can talk about 'god' and be understood but lets forget that)

    Yet they have meaning in other ways, and just as a virologist does not use the same def of life as a biologist, If your curious, and let me frame the question in a way that can generate meaning, I'll tell you the framework I use. I'll briefly summarize.

    Usually I use Badiou's frame since he's a hardcore atheist and all his posits are grounded in mathematical theory.

    [FONT=Times New Roman]In Badiou’s ontology truth emerges from an “event”; and this event comes from the “empty set”, or void. These “truth-events” can be produced within four possible fields, or “generic procedures”. For Badiou the four fields, or conditions, for a truth’s emergence are Science, Art, Politics, and Love. A truth can only emerge through an event in one of these categories. Each new inaugurates a new ‘situation’ with it’s own set of rules. Each situation has a ‘count’, and any element of the situation is a part of the ‘count’ of the situation. Thus, each element of a situation ‘counts’ as a part of the whole. For example; the inception of Jazz music was an event that took place within the “generic procedure” of Art. The initial occurrence of Jazz music emerged from a void, which was nothing but the empty space existing in the absence of what would later come to be known as Jazz music.
    The event of Jazz subsequently changed the situation in which it emerged; before its founding event Jazz simply didn’t ‘count’ as part of the situation, but after this emergence Jazz inaugurated a new situation in which it was included in the ‘count’ of elements within the situation.For Badiou, truth and subjectivity are intertwined in a fashion quite similar to that of Kierkegaard; and each emerges from the founding of an event. Subjectivity takes place when an individual claims fidelity to an event; and the truth of that event is proclaimed in a subject’s “militant proclamation” of that event and the truth it has inaugurated.The proclamation must be militant because nothing is ‘real’ or ‘settled’ in the situation, so a subject must make things happen, or make ‘shape’, of the situation. This can be seen in marriage. Although two individuals participate in a ceremony on a certain day and at a certain time, nothing truly happens. The next day each remains the same person they have been their entire life. Thus, they must live in a militant fidelity to the ‘event’ that was their marriage, and subsequently ‘make shape’ of their new situation through this fidelity.Thus, at the inception of the music which would come to be known as Jazz, certain individuals witnessed the founding event, and were subjectivized through their witnessing and subsequent fidelity to this event. The “truth” associated with this new form of art emerges through the faithful proclamation of this founding event.)[/FONT]

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spilteeth:

    I was saying Saussure got it upside down and was wrong, not right. I was describing the framework I was using.
    1) Then why bring him into this debate in the first place? His ideas are not only badly out-of-date, they are seriously confused.

    2) I must have missed your negative comments on Saussure; it was not easy reading your post, since your text seemed to change size randomly, and was highly compressed. I think you need to take lessons on constructing clear arguments.

    I'll ask for the 3rd time - what framework you using?
    As far as I can tell, this is the first time you have asked for this.

    Anyway, I am not using a 'framework', why on earth do you suppose I am, or even that I need one?

    UMMMMMM I know - I quoted you and told you I was answering the 2 specific ways your using the word meaning......What the heck? You didn't even read my post?
    I did, but the point needed emphasising again (see below) -- even you say some things twice!

    Am I not allowed to do this?

    You're thinking, in a way I tried to liken to Saussure's, is upside down.

    You start with the idea of 'god doesn't exist' instead of being objective.
    Where on earth did you get this idea from?

    In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

    That is why I have to say things several times, since you seem to want to read into my posts what you want to see there, not what I actually say.

    Your question is 'meaningless' since it fails to frame itself in a way that produces meaning - ie apprehend the subject 'god'
    And what 'question' was that? [I fear you are not beginning to see things.]

    And, once more, until you tell us what the word 'god' refers to, or what the nature of god is, this response of yours is devoid of meaning, since, once more it contains an empty word, 'god'.

    And, you 'god'-botherers cannot tell us this; so you are in a permanent bind here.

    Lets test out the two hypothesis.
    What 'hypotheses' are you on about? I have put none forward; I can't speak for you.

    It is true (as you say) that divine is meaningless and the words used to describe them only if god does not exists, so then lets posit the opposite : god does exist. Now those words are not self-referential and they are meaningful.
    This is not what I have argued, so this is wasted effort again.

    Here it is again -- I have to reaped things several times for you, since once is never enough:

    In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

    In fact, I am not at all concerned with 'his' existence, since neither you nor I know what we are asking this existential question of -- neither of us understands what this word relates to.

    Or, if you do, you are being remarkably coy about it.

    god does exist. Now those words are not self-referential and they are meaningful.
    Ah, but the sentence 'God exists' is meaningless, since it contains an empty word, 'god'.

    And there is no way you can tell us what you mean by this word without using other empty terms, forming a self-referential, meaningless set, as I said.

    So then we need a def of god, the Pauline one, as you mentioned is abstract - "beyond definition, god is love etc"

    Since god cannot be defined the word god and divine is, as you say, by definition meaningless.
    I nowhere say that the word 'god' is meaningless 'by definition' -- I try to avoid using this word ('definition') -- it is one you and BTB are fixated upon, not me.

    Once more: this word ('god') is 'meaningless' since you lot cannot tell us what it means without using other meaningless words.

    And are you committed to St Paul's brainless attempt to tell us what God is? [i.e., 'love']

    I hope not, for it has a few untoward implications you might not be aware of.

    And even if you are committed to it, the sentence 'God is love' is itself meaningless since it contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

    Whatever you try to do, you will always hit this brick wall -- and no wonder, even you 'god'-botherers tell us you haven't a clue what 'god' is (except you have to use other meaningless words to try to tell us something about 'him').

    My entire post was to simply say that the framework your using cannot judge the meaning of god or divine, it is the wrong tool.
    Once more, I am not using a 'framework'.

    Yes, you cannot actually talk about god and be sensical, within your framework.
    You must frame it in a different way if you would like to understand how god generates meaning.
    But, once more, these sentences themselves are devoid of meaning, since they contain an empty word: 'god'.

    So, is god and divine 'meaningful' in the 2 ways you are using meaning.

    NO.

    Again, you are correct, god and divine are meaningless terms in that context.
    I thought that was pretty well implied.

    (although i thought i explained how the average Joe can talk about 'god' and be understood but lets forget that)

    Yet they have meaning in other ways, and just as a virologist does not use the same def of life as a biologist, If your curious, and let me frame the question in a way that can generate meaning, I'll tell you the framework I use. I'll briefly summarize.

    Usually I use Badiou's frame since he's a hardcore atheist and all his posits are grounded in mathematical theory.
    And yet, for all this bluster, we still have no idea what you are talking about -- and neither have you, for you too do not know what 'god' is (except you use other meaningless words), nor anything about 'his' nature.

    In that case, with an empty term like this, it is impossible to generate meaning -- as I noted earlier, you might just as well have used the word 'schmod'.

    Sure, you can get emotionally attached to the word 'schmod' too, but that is your affair. As with the word 'god' (which has meaning in sense (1), and perhaps (2) for you), attachment to the use of a word is not at all what you lot mean by worshipping 'god'.

    In that respect you direct your prayers and devotion to something outside yourself (or, rather, distinct from you); and in that sense of 'god', neither you, nor I, nor anyone else in the entire history of Christianity has a clue what this 'something' is.

    Or if they did, they kept it well hidden.

    So, this is not about whether you mean 'meaning' in the way I suggest, you cannot give this word any meaning that meshed with they way you worship this 'something' -- in fact, you cannot even tell us if it is 'something or no -- for that would go against the passage from Isaiah I quoted in my last post.

    You can't tell us whether 'god'' is a 'something' or even a 'nothing'!

    As several Christian mystics observed, all you can do is face this conundrum in silence.

    And thanks for this, but it seems about as relevant as the words and figures printed on a supermarket receipt!

    In Badiou’s ontology truth emerges from an “event”; and this event comes from the “empty set”, or void. These “truth-events” can be produced within four possible fields, or “generic procedures”. For Badiou the four fields, or conditions, for a truth’s emergence are Science, Art, Politics, and Love. A truth can only emerge through an event in one of these categories. Each new inaugurates a new ‘situation’ with it’s own set of rules. Each situation has a ‘count’, and any element of the situation is a part of the ‘count’ of the situation. Thus, each element of a situation ‘counts’ as a part of the whole. For example; the inception of Jazz music was an event that took place within the “generic procedure” of Art. The initial occurrence of Jazz music emerged from a void, which was nothing but the empty space existing in the absence of what would later come to be known as Jazz music.

    The event of Jazz subsequently changed the situation in which it emerged; before its founding event Jazz simply didn’t ‘count’ as part of the situation, but after this emergence Jazz inaugurated a new situation in which it was included in the ‘count’ of elements within the situation. For Badiou, truth and subjectivity are intertwined in a fashion quite similar to that of Kierkegaard; and each emerges from the founding of an event. Subjectivity takes place when an individual claims fidelity to an event; and the truth of that event is proclaimed in a subject’s “militant proclamation” of that event and the truth it has inaugurated. The proclamation must be militant because nothing is ‘real’ or ‘settled’ in the situation, so a subject must make things happen, or make ‘shape’, of the situation. This can be seen in marriage. Although two individuals participate in a ceremony on a certain day and at a certain time, nothing truly happens. The next day each remains the same person they have been their entire life. Thus, they must live in a militant fidelity to the ‘event’ that was their marriage, and subsequently ‘make shape’ of their new situation through this fidelity. Thus, at the inception of the music which would come to be known as Jazz, certain individuals witnessed the founding event, and were subjectivized through their witnessing and subsequent fidelity to this event. The “truth” associated with this new form of art emerges through the faithful proclamation of this founding event.)
    I am struggling to see how this helps.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  10. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spilteeth:



    1) Then why bring him into this debate in the first place? His ideas are not only badly out-of-date, they are seriously confused.

    2) I must have missed your negative comments on Saussure; it was not easy reading your post, since your text seemed to change size randomly, and was highly compressed. I think you need to take lessons on constructing clear arguments.



    As far as I can tell, this is the first time you have asked for this.

    Anyway, I am not using a 'framework', why on earth do you suppose I am, or even that I need one?



    I did, but the point needed emphasising again (see below) -- even you say some things twice!

    Am I not allowed to do this?



    Where on earth did you get this idea from?

    In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

    That is why I have to say things several times, since you seem to want to read into my posts what you want to see there, not what I actually say.



    And what 'question' was that? [I fear you are not beginning to see things.]

    And, once more, until you tell us what the word 'god' refers to, or what the nature of god is, this response of yours is devoid of meaning, since, once more it contains an empty word, 'god'.

    And, you 'god'-botherers cannot tell us this; so you are in a permanent bind here.



    What 'hypotheses' are you on about? I have put none forward; I can't speak for you.



    This is not what I have argued, so this is wasted effort again.

    Here it is again -- I have to reaped things several times for you, since once is never enough:

    In fact, as I have said several times, I begin with my allegation that the word 'god' is meaningless, so the question whether 'he' exists or not is an empty question, since it contains a meaningless word: 'god'.

    In fact, I am not at all concerned with 'his' existence, since neither you nor I know what we are asking this existential question of -- neither of us understands what this word relates to.

    Or, if you do, you are being remarkably coy about it.



    Ah, but the sentence 'God exists' is meaningless, since it contains an empty word, 'god'.

    And there is no way you can tell us what you mean by this word without using other empty terms, forming a self-referential, meaningless set, as I said.



    I nowhere say that the word 'god' is meaningless 'by definition' -- I try to avoid using this word ('definition') -- it is one you and BTB are fixated upon, not me.

    Once more: this word ('god') is 'meaningless' since you lot cannot tell us what it means without using other meaningless words.

    And are you committed to St Paul's brainless attempt to tell us what God is? [i.e., 'love']

    I hope not, for it has a few untoward implications you might not be aware of.

    And even if you are committed to it, the sentence 'God is love' is itself meaningless since it contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

    Whatever you try to do, you will always hit this brick wall -- and no wonder, even you 'god'-botherers tell us you haven't a clue what 'god' is (except you have to use other meaningless words to try to tell us something about 'him').



    Once more, I am not using a 'framework'.



    But, once more, these sentences themselves are devoid of meaning, since they contain an empty word: 'god'.



    And yet, for all this bluster, we still have no idea what you are talking about -- and neither have you, for you too do not know what 'god' is (except you use other meaningless words), nor anything about 'his' nature.

    In that case, with an empty term like this, it is impossible to generate meaning -- as I noted earlier, you might just as well have used the word 'schmod'.

    Sure, you can get emotionally attached to the word 'schmod' too, but that is your affair. As with the word 'god' (which has meaning in sense (1), and perhaps (2) for you), attachment to the use of a word is not at all what you lot mean by worshipping 'god'.

    In that respect you direct your prayers and devotion to something outside yourself (or, rather, distinct from you); and in that sense of 'god', neither you, nor I, nor anyone else in the entire history of Christianity has a clue what this 'something' is.

    Or if they did, they kept it well hidden.

    So, this is not about whether you mean 'meaning' in the way I suggest, you cannot give this word any meaning that meshed with they way you worship this 'something' -- in fact, you cannot even tell us if it is 'something or no -- for that would go against the passage from Isaiah I quoted in my last post.

    You can't tell us whether 'god'' is a 'something' or even a 'nothing'!

    As several Christian mystics observed, all you can do is face this conundrum in silence.

    And thanks for this, but it seems about as relevant as the words and figures printed on a supermarket receipt!



    Are you drunk, by any chance?

    ROSA I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!

    "This word is 'meaningless' since you lot cannot tell us what it means without using other meaningless words.

    And are you committed to St Paul's brainless attempt to tell us what God is? [i.e., 'love']

    I hope not, for it has a few untoward implications you might not be aware of.

    And even if you are committed to it, the sentence 'God is love' is itself meaningless since it contains an empty word, namely 'god'.

    Whatever you try to do, you will always hit this brick wall -- and no wonder, even you 'god'-botherers tell us you haven't a clue what 'god' is (except you use other meaningless words to try to tell us something about 'him')."

    THAT IS CORRECT.
    (However, beginning from the premise that 'god' or 'smod' is an empty term creates some problems since you've already defined the word to some degree a priori but whatever)

    By 'definition', I meant how you yourself defined how you were using 'meaning'.
    Redread your post.

    However we can change the way we frame 'meaning' and put it into another contexual understanding, so that the word 'divine' and 'god' can generate meaning. ie- Badiou.

    You reject Badiou or dismiss it, Ok.

    I think his way of applying 'meaning' to 'god' makes more sense than the 2 definitions you've decided to concentrate on, thats all I'm saying.

    I'm not drunk. Please, lets keep this respectful, I'll do my best. why go there?

  11. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spilteeth:

    ROSA I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!
    But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?

    Here's another example:

    By 'definition', I meant how you yourself defined how you were using 'meaning'.
    Redread your post.
    I did not define this word, I merely gave different uses of it.

    Re-read my posts, this time with some glasses on.

    And here's another example:

    However we can change the way we frame 'meaning' and put it into another contexual understanding, so that the word 'divine' and 'god' can generate meaning. ie- Badiou.

    You reject Badiou or dismiss it, Ok.
    I didn't reject or dismiss Badiou, I just failed to see how it was relevant -- still don't.

    I think his way of applying 'meaning' to 'god' makes more sense than the 2 definitions you've decided to concentrate on, thats all I'm saying.
    I covered this point in my post -- re-read it.

    I'm not drunk. Please, lets keep this respectful, I'll do my best. why go there?
    That's why I removed that comment while you were misreading my last post.

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spilteeth:



    But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?

    Here's another example:



    I did not define this word, I merely gave different uses of it.

    Re-read my posts, this time with some glasses on.

    And here's another example:



    I didn't reject or dismiss Badiou, I just failed to see how it was relevant -- still don't.



    I covered this point in my post -- re-read it.



    That's why I removed that comment while you were misreading my last post.

    "But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?"

    I literally quoted what you said and then replied 'correct.'


    "I did not define this word, I merely gave different uses of it."

    Yes Rosa, I did not mean to imply you yourself created the meanings for these words.
    My apologies.
    You gave SPECIFICALLY the two uses you were using, that is what I've been going by.

    The Badiou quote has no relevance to the two uses of 'meaning' you've pointed to.
    As I said, I posted it in case you were curious how I would use 'meaning' if I were to posit something of god as it relates to worship.

  13. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spilteeth:

    I literally quoted what you said and then replied 'correct.'
    And yet, elsewhere, you tried to paraphrase me in your own words, but interpolated your own ideas as if they were mine, so this series of 'corrects' shows that you have an insecure grasp of what I said.

    In which case, and once more:

    But, you cannot even get my ideas right so how can you be agreeing with me?
    You:

    You gave SPECIFICALLY the two uses you were using, that is what I've been going by.
    There were in fact three; see how insecure your grasp even of counting is!

    The Badiou quote has no relevance to the two uses of 'meaning' you've pointed to.
    As I said, I posted it in case you were curious how I would use 'meaning' if I were to posit something of god as it relates to worship.
    And, as I pointed out, the Badiou stuff is irrelevant, since neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue what it is you are worshipping.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  15. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spilteeth:



    And yet, elsewhere, you tried to paraphrase me in your own words, but interpolated your own ideas as if they were mine, so this series of 'corrects' shows that you have an insecure grasp of what I said.

    In which case, and once more:



    You:



    There were in fact three; see how insecure your grasp even of counting is!



    And, as I pointed out, the Badiou stuff is irrelevant, since neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue what it is you are worshiping.


    "There were in fact three; see how insecure your grasp even of counting is!"

    These were the 2, please point out the 3rd. :

    "Sure, you can get emotionally attached to the word 'schmod' too, but that is your affair. As with the word 'god' (which has meaning in sense (1), and perhaps (2) for you), attachment to the use of a word is not at all what you lot mean by worshipping 'god'."

    "And, as I pointed out, the Badiou stuff is irrelevant, since neither you, nor anyone else for that matter, has a clue what it is you are worshipping."

    Actually, I also pointed out it was irelevent, but not because I have "no clue what it is you are worshipping" although thats true in one sense, partially true in a 2nd sense, and false in the 3rd sense, but before we start on that, lets get into the present conversation. .

    But before we actually start this conversation, so these misunderstandings do not keep occurring, please answer these 3:

    1) Please tell me what you mean by "clue"

    2) Please tell me how you think meaning is generated within language (you say you have no framework, fine. I -apparently mistakenly-assumed it was some structuralist/post structualist Saussure 'well, a word is a signifier that points to a concept which points to the thing its referring to" framework, which I reject.)

    3) Since you have set this argument in your own terms, and the Badiou framework which I get me "clue" is mathematically grounded outside of linguistics, please explain to me how you think meaning is generated outside of language.

    I thought I understood what you were saying, but perhaps you're right.
    Clearing these 3 things will provide the common ground to proceed and then perhaps I will have some more clarity.

    However, having said that, I do actually think I understand your argument, I thought it was pretty simple and self evident (god is an empty term because the words using to descibe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term) but I suppose I cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain until we clear up these 3 things.

    You're right, my argument was not rigorously argued, most of it was implied and simply presented conclusions of which I assumed you would be familiar with how I came to them.

    We will start from the very basics and then proceed nice and slow point by point, since this is how you demand to be spoken too.

    I will reference all linguistic theory I cite in the future.
    Last edited by spiltteeth; 19th August 2009 at 02:29.

  16. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spilteeth:

    These were the 2, please point out the 3rd. :
    Here it is:

    I suspect you mean (as in 'intend') perhaps (1), or, maybe (2), whereas I mean (as in 'intend') (4) and sometimes (6) or (8).
    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=85

    Actually, I also pointed out it was irrelevant, but not because I have "no clue what it is you are worshipping" although that's true in one sense, partially true in a 2nd sense, and false in the 3rd sense, but before we start on that, lets get into the present conversation.
    This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'.

    And you said you were an orthodox Christian; but this does not look like the alleged faith of the Apostles and the Prophets.

    In fact, you have faith in 'you-do-not-know-what'.

    1) Please tell me what you mean by "clue"
    What is says: you have absolutely no idea about the nature of 'god', or even if 'he' has one.

    That is why, 'god' has no meaning for you either (except as a sort of totem to make you feel better).

    2) Please tell me how you think meaning is generated within language (you say you have no framework, fine. I -apparently mistakenly-assumed it was some structuralist/post structualist Saussure 'well, a word is a signifier that points to a concept which points to the thing its referring to" framework, which I reject.)
    I have no idea. I prefer to leave that to the Linguists.

    3) Since you have set this argument in your own terms, and the Badiou framework which I get me "clue" is mathematically grounded outside of linguistics, please explain to me how you think meaning is generated outside of language.
    Same comment, except I am not sure what this means: "meaning generated outside of language".

    And you are right, I am neither a structuralist nor a post-structuralist -- in philosophy I am a 'nothing-at-all-ist' -- but by that I do not mean I am a nihilist.

    I mean, I reject all philosophical theory as self-important hot air.

  17. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spilteeth:



    Here it is:



    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...7&postcount=85



    This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'.

    And you said you were an orthodox Christian; but this does not look like the alleged faith of the Apostles and the Prophets.

    In fact, you have faith in 'you-do-not-know-what'.



    What is says: you have absolutely no idea about the nature of 'god', or even if 'he' has one.

    That is why, 'god' has no meaning for you either (except as a sort of totem to make you feel better).



    I have no idea. I prefer to leave that to the Linguists.



    Same comment, except I am not sure what this means: "meaning generated outside of language".

    And you are right, I am neither a structuralist nor a post-structuralist -- in philosophy I am a 'nothing-at-all-ist' -- but by that I do not mean I am a nihilist.

    I mean, I reject all philosophical theory as self-important hot air.


    Well, there's alot wrong with this.

    "This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'.

    And you said you were an orthodox Christian; but this does not look like the alleged faith of the Apostles and the Prophets.

    In fact, you have faith in 'you-do-not-know-what'."


    I have not explained my faith at all. Have not even begun too.

    I said : "although that's true in one sense, partially true in a 2nd sense, and false in the 3rd sense, but before we start on that, lets get into the present conversation."

    I did not explain what I meant by that. I want to get this out of the way first. Since I did not offer an explanation I find it bizarre you would conclude my non-existent explanation translates into a faith of " 'you-do-not-know-what'

    Also from my non-existent explanation of my faith you've concluded :

    "This seems to mean that you worship that which makes you feel good, or which has personal significance for you (like say a Teddy Bear) -- whereas you haven't a clue whether or not 'it' exists, or even what 'it' is if 'it' exists, even if 'it' is an 'it'."

    Since you have defined 'clue' as an idea, then you are wrong. You may say I am simply worshiping an idea (even if represented in negative-representation), thats fine. Thats a diff matter.

    Also, you are wrong when you say Worship makes me feel better. It does not. It does not bind anxiety for me.

    Also, if it has personal meaning, which it does, then logically I do have an idea which, as you say, has meaning (personal)
    (And I know you don't think you're talking about personal meaning, ie using meaning in that sense)

    You are talking about several very different things.

    "That is why, 'god' has no meaning for you either (except as a sort of totem to make you feel better)."

    A totem. Ok. Lets discuss this. You are suggesting that I have a symptom (anxiety, existential angst etc) that I try to 'feel better' from. These symptoms I then fetitishtically disavow onto god, as opposed to the symptom returning to me as the original trauma (ironically I've actually thought the same about you, 'this is how Rosa is using the forum, to bind anxiety so she doesn't have to suffer the emotional affect of some child-hood trauma, but obviously I haven't "a clue" if thats true or not) To do this 1) I have to have an idea of god. 2) In that very way it would necessarily generate meaning.

    We've entered psychology, which is where I was going to go anyway.

    Your argument, which was what I intended to contend, is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated.

    Also, because meaning can be generated outside of language, we need to talk about subjectivity, thats why I wanted to know what you meant by 'clue' and even 'idea.'

    But really, there's so much confusion and contradiction even in this simple post of yours I'm not sure its worthwhile to sort out.

    Also, besides linguistics, I would be arguing philosophical concepts from an orthodox position, nothing fancy, based mainly on Heidegger and Orthodox theologian Zizioulas, he wrote that book 'being as communion.'

    If you reject this I don't know how I'd proceed to explain my faith and how it doesn't jive with what your saying, once I understand what your saying.

    Listen, I'm not nit-picking, but if your argument is as I've briefly summarized it (god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term) -and please address this if it is correct or if not how- then this really is a matter of signifiers and representations and concepts (ideas/clue)
    In other words - linguistics.

  18. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spiltteeth:

    I have not explained my faith at all. Have not even begun too.
    And I doubt you can without using yet more meaningless terms.

    Since I did not offer an explanation I find it bizarre you would conclude my non-existent explanation translates into a faith of " 'you-do-not-know-what'
    Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'.

    Also, you are wrong when you say Worship makes me feel better. It does not. It does not bind anxiety for me.
    But it cannot only have this effect on you, otherwise much of the new Testament was wrong.

    But, even if this were so, it has an emotional impact on you, and that is all I need.

    A totem. Ok. Lets discuss this. You are suggesting that I have a symptom (anxiety, existential angst etc) that I try to 'feel better' from. These symptoms I then fetitishtically disavow onto god, as opposed to the symptom returning to me as the original trauma (ironically I've actually thought the same about you, 'this is how Rosa is using the forum, to bind anxiety so she doesn't have to suffer the emotional affect of some child-hood trauma, but obviously I haven't "a clue" if that's true or not) To do this 1) I have to have an idea of god. 2) In that very way it would necessarily generate meaning.

    We've entered psychology, which is where I was going to go anyway.
    I could not see what this had to do with what I posted.

    And, it looks like you are beginning to invent again:

    Your argument, which was what I intended to contend, is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated.
    But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

    I just appealed to the different uses of this word that we already have, and noted that the words you employ in relation to 'god', etc., have no meaning in the senses I indicated, and that the senses in which they do have meaning for you are of no help at all in telling either you or anyone else what the alleged object of your worship is.

    So, we have no idea what you believers mean when you use the word 'god' and neither have you.

    Or, if you do, you (plural and singular) have kept this a well-hidden secret for 2000 years, or more.

    No mention of 'generating' meaning here anywhere -- nor is it even implied.

    Also, because meaning can be generated outside of language, we need to talk about subjectivity, that's why I wanted to know what you meant by 'clue' and even 'idea.'
    I asked you what this meant, and you have so far failed to tell us: What is meaning 'outside language'?

    [I note you will have to use language to tell us...]

    But really, there's so much confusion and contradiction even in this simple post of yours I'm not sure its worthwhile to sort out.
    Well, you can't even count correctly the senses of meaning I used in an earlier post, so you are not well-placed to spot anything more complicated in my posts (such as if there are any alleged 'contradictions' in there).

    So, to prove me wrong: I challenge you to point one of these 'contradictions' out.

    Also, besides linguistics, I would be arguing philosophical concepts from an orthodox position, nothing fancy, based mainly on Heidegger and Orthodox theologian Zizioulas, he wrote that book 'being as communion.'
    That certainly helps explain your confused state of mind. And, it is a bit rich of you relying on Heidegger when he was a card-carrying Nazi, and ruling-class hack.

    If you reject this I don't know how I'd proceed to explain my faith and how it doesn't jive with what your saying, once I understand what your saying.
    Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language

    If anything, Heidegger will get in the way.

    Listen, I'm not nit-picking, but if your argument is as I've briefly summarized it (god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term) -and please address this if it is correct or if not how- then this really is a matter of signifiers and representations and concepts (ideas/clue)
    In other words - linguistics.
    Well, I have already explained all this: we do not need technical terms to use and understand ordinary words.

    And I haven't used the word 'signifier' for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  20. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spiltteeth:



    And I doubt you can without using yet more meaningless terms.





    But it cannot only have this effect on you, otherwise much of the new Testament was wrong.

    But, even if this were so, it has an emotional impact on you, and that is all I need.



    I could not see what this had to do with what I posted.

    And, it looks like you are beginning to invent again:



    But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

    I just appealed to the different uses of this word that we already have, and noted that the words you employ in relation to 'god', etc., have no meaning in the senses I indicated, and that the senses in which they do have meaning for you are of no help at all in telling either you or anyone else what the alleged object of your worship is.

    So, we have no idea what you believers mean when you use the word 'god' and neither have you.

    Or, if you do, you (plural and singular) have kept this a well-hidden secret for 2000 years, or more.

    No mention of 'generating' meaning here anywhere -- nor is it even implied.



    I asked you what this meant, and you have so far failed to tell us: What is meaning 'outside language'?

    [I note you will have to use language to tell us...]



    Well, you can't even count correctly the senses of meaning I used in an earlier post, so you are not well-placed to spot anything more complicated in my posts (such as if there are any alleged 'contradictions' in there).

    So, to prove me wrong: I challenge you to point one of these 'contradictions' out.



    That certainly helps explain your confused state of mind. And, it is a bit rich of you relying on Heidegger when he was a card-carrying Nazi, and ruling-class hack.



    Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language

    If anything, Heidegger will get in the way.



    Well, I have already explained all this: we do not need technical terms to use and understand ordinary words.

    And I haven't used the word 'signifier' for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post.

    Good lord Rosa, you've repeated so many mistakes.

    "And I doubt you can without using yet more meaningless terms."

    Ah, well, this is called 'contempt before investigation' it is an unattractive quality which must be suspended or else a scientific discussion will be marred by your prejudices and assumptions.

    "Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'. "

    Oh dear, yet another fallacy. A contradiction in fact. You are using the word 'failure' wrong, since I have not -as you acknowledge- attempted to explain my faith, how could I have failed at it?
    This is simple logic.

    But there is another contradiction (2!) in the same sentence.
    Although you acknowledge I haven't attempted to explain my faith, you think its fair to say what I believe in.
    Again, simple logic. Based on previous explanations one cannot logically predict the next one based on a different source (me vs the others) How is this fair? How can you presuppose that I will use the same arguments when you don't know me.

    "But it cannot only have this effect on you, otherwise much of the new Testament was wrong."

    True! Although, sine I plan to get into the nature of subjectivity, the term 'effect' is imprecise.

    "But, even if this were so, it has an emotional impact on you, and that is all I need."

    Dearest lord in heaven yet another logical fallacy! Since I have not explained my faith, or laid out my argument, you cannot possibly know what you 'need' to oppose it with. Again, an assumption born in contempt to logic and the scientific method.

    "But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.

    I just appealed to the different uses of this word that we already have, and noted that the words you employ in relation to 'god', etc., have no meaning in the senses I indicated, and that the senses in which they do have meaning for you are of no help at all in telling either you or anyone else what the alleged object of your worship is."

    Well, you know I agree with you on this point, I've so (twice) already.

    I think the trouble is with the question, not the answer, which has the seeds of its own contradiction in it.
    Previously you asked me "What question" which I had assumed you'd know is 'is god a term with meaning' - I'm leading up to show how the process of coming at that question, as well as the question itself, is problematical, which is where your understanding of how meaning is generated (no, not like electricity, I actually gave a very brief and simple overview previously-it has to do with condensation and ordering) thats all.

    "So, we have no idea what you believers mean when you use the word 'god' and neither have you."

    Here we go again! A church like dogma you have in your baseless opinions!

    "
    Or, if you do, you (plural and singular) have kept this a well-hidden secret for 2000 years, or more.

    No mention of 'generating' meaning here anywhere -- nor is it even implied."

    That;s true, but you might be -or not- surprised at how much more varied our vocabulary has become since so many new ways of understanding have come about. Although I do believe I hinted at the sources I will be utilizeing...

    "Well, you can't even count correctly the senses of meaning I used in an earlier post, so you are not well-placed to spot anything more complicated in my posts (such as if there are any alleged 'contradictions' in there).

    So, to prove me wrong: I challenge you to point one of these 'contradictions' out."

    Well, I will be polite and at this point and merely concern myself with only one, all the this conversation rests on what you've been positing about 'god' being an empty term. The conversation can go no further unless we understand each other, I've said this before. And YET you still will not address my neat little summing up of what your saying to see if I understand you correctly.
    Without me understanding you correctly, don't you see this is a contradiction to furthering the conversation if it is based on my misunderstanding?


    "That certainly helps explain your confused state of mind. And, it is a bit rich of you relying on Heidegger when he was a card-carrying Nazi, and ruling-class hack."

    Before posting that I'd be relying on Heide to some degree I wondered if your prejudges would get in the way. His comments on technology aside, please explain to me how his being a Nazi is relevant?

    If it isn't let's not keep bringing up these extraneous things, look at all the confusion so far!



    Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language

    If anything, Heidegger will get in the way.

    "Well if you can't make your case, replying to my ordinary language challenge that the word 'god' is meaningless, using ordinary language in that reply, I do not see how you can show that 'god' has any meaning at all in the ordinary ways I indicated. After all, I wasn't using technical language"

    I think I've replied enough we're (if I understand you correctly) I agree with you.
    We can still avoid extraordinary Language, but we must use it correctly.

    "I asked you what this meant, and you have so far failed to tell us: What is meaning 'outside language'?

    [I note you will have to use language to tell us...]"

    Oh, I apologize. I did note it would have to be through negative representation though, however this has to do with worship, not my criticism of your question. So, you see there are several things to clear up before this will even come into play and as it is your post is very messy (Although I warn you part of its kernel is in Badiou's theory of the event.)

    To clarify, lets separate all these issues (my faith from my 'criticism' of how you've chosen to approach the question of god being an empty term vs etc)

  21. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spiltteeth:

    Good lord Rosa, you've repeated so many mistakes.
    Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

    In fact, as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly.

    Ah, well, this is called 'contempt before investigation' it is an unattractive quality which must be suspended or else a scientific discussion will be marred by your prejudices and assumptions.
    Not so; as I pointed out in an earlier post, I used to be a believer, and I have read and studied the theological classics (St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Suarez, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann, Pallenberg, etc. etc.), I have argued with scores of believers over the years (some of whom are university lecturers in theology), and not one of the latter could say what they believed in, or worshipped, except they used other meaningless terms in the process.

    Now, since you struggle to count correctly, I rather think that with respect to your good self, I am not in the presence of another St Thomas Aquinas -- so, it's a pretty safe bet that you can do no better than these characters.

    And, as we have seen, up to now, you haven't even tried!

    In response to this comment of mine:

    "Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'. "
    You replied:

    Oh dear, yet another fallacy. A contradiction in fact. You are using the word 'failure' wrong, since I have not -as you acknowledge- attempted to explain my faith, how could I have failed at it?
    This is simple logic.
    Once more, your accusing finger needs to be rotated through 180 degrees, since I pointedly said:

    Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in
    Notice, you failed to tell us, not that you failed at explaining it after you had tried to tell us -- as you say:

    since I have not - as you acknowledge- attempted to explain my faith, how could I have failed at it?
    Compare that with someone who fails to attempt to count the three examples of 'meaning' I intended earlier (not you), with someone who attempts to count them, but fails to do so correctly (you).

    Can you now see the difference? One is a failure to do something, the other is to do that something and then fail to do it successfully. You have yet to try to explain your faith to us, in that sense, you failed to explain it, as I said.

    So, your reputation as the next St Thomas Aquinas is sinking faster with each new post of yours -- take my advice: quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences.

    But there is another contradiction (2!) in the same sentence.
    Although you acknowledge I haven't attempted to explain my faith, you think its fair to say what I believe in.
    Again, simple logic. Based on previous explanations one cannot logically predict the next one based on a different source (me vs the others) How is this fair? How can you presuppose that I will use the same arguments when you don't know me.
    It's not a contradiction, even if it may or may not be mistaken.

    In that case, your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count.

    And note, I said this:

    "Well, since you have so far failed to tell us precisely what you have faith in, I think it is fair to say that you, like all the other believers I have debated this, have faith in 'you-know-not-what'. "
    As I have explained this above, your continued prevarication here suggests I was correct in this judgement of you and your incapacity to tell us exactly what the object of your faith/worship is.

    Until you rise to this challenge, just like every other believer I have debated this with, and just like the Christian classicists I listed above, I think we can conclude that you have faith in a "you-do-not-know-what".

    The Christian mystics were far more honest, here -- they at least acknowledge this fact.

    And, as I also said, it would be very easy for you to put me in my place by becoming the very first person in the history of Christianity to say precisely what 'god' is (without using yet more meaningless terms).

    So, can you put your theological mouth where your poor logic and number skills now are?

    Dearest lord in heaven yet another logical fallacy! Since I have not explained my faith, or laid out my argument, you cannot possibly know what you 'need' to oppose it with. Again, an assumption born in contempt to logic and the scientific method.
    I think you are confusing the phrase 'logical fallacy' with 'error', 'falsehood' and/or 'mistake' -- which is not surprising since you seem not to be able to count correctly.

    In which case, you are the one who shows a marked contempt for "logic and the scientific method".

    Well, you know I agree with you on this point, I've [said] so (twice) already.
    If so, why did you post this?

    Your argument, which was what I intended to contend, is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated.
    Bold added.

    It seems that you do not even understand your own posts, since, when I posted this:

    But, my argument does not depend on how 'meaning' is generated (seems you think meaning is like electricity!), as I pointed out to you in response to a direct question from you in my last post -- indeed, you can examine what I have said with an electron microscope, and you will see that 'generated' (and none of its synonyms) appears in anything I have written.
    in reply to the above, you now say this!

    Well, you know I agree with you on this point, I've [said] so (twice) already.
    So, you both think and do not think that my "argument...is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated" (your words again).

    Now, either you spin a sentence around in your head until its angular velocity overcomes the forces of good sense, and out it pops, or you like being enigmatic, or you do not care what you say -- or all three.

    But then, what is this?

    Previously you asked me "What question" which I had assumed you'd know is 'is god a term with meaning' - I'm leading up to show how the process of coming at that question, as well as the question itself, is problematical, which is where your understanding of how meaning is generated (no, not like electricity, I actually gave a very brief and simple overview previously-it has to do with condensation and ordering) that's all.
    It seems now that you don't agree with me, and think it important how 'meaning is generated'.

    So, all three then...

    Here we go again! A church like dogma you have in your baseless opinions!
    Well, and once more, you could put me in my place by telling us what exactly you believe 'god' to be, instead of throwing up a smokescreen trying to hide the fact that you can't do this.

    In more than half a dozen posts now, you haven't even tried.

    And you wonder why I suspect you can't!

    Well, I will be polite and at this point and merely concern myself with only one, all the this conversation rests on what you've been positing about 'god' being an empty term. The conversation can go no further unless we understand each other, I've said this before. And YET you still will not address my neat little summing up of what your saying to see if I understand you correctly.

    Without me understanding you correctly, don't you see this is a contradiction to furthering the conversation if it is based on my misunderstanding?
    Your alleged 'summary' of what I am saying is unnecessary -- all you have to do is read what I have said with more care than you have shown up to now -- learn to count, and look up the meaning of 'logical fallacy', among several other things --and refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe.

    I have chosen to write in plain English -- if that's not good enough for you, there's not much else I can do.

    Anyway, I take all this as further prevarication -- it puts off the evil day when you have to confront the unwelcome fact that you cannot tell us what precisely it is that you have faith in, or worship. It cannot be pleasant realising that, after all these years, all you can respond with is a smokescreen and then miffed silence.

    Moreover, it is a sign of just how desperate you are becoming that you are thrashing about for something -- anything -- to throw at me, like 'logical fallacy' (when it's plain you do not know what these are), 'contradiction' (when you seem to confuse this with 'falsehood' or 'error'), and 'scientific method' (when this is inapplicable here -- do you suppose we can carry out measurements and experiments to settle this?)

    Before posting that I'd be relying on Heide[gger] to some degree I wondered if your prejudges would get in the way. His comments on technology aside, please explain to me how his being a Nazi is relevant?
    Because it strikes me as decidedly odd that a lefty is prepared to take intellectual guidance from a Nazi (I know how you'd react if I were to quote Mein Kampf in support of anything I said); this is quite apart from the fact that Heidegger was a ruling-class hack, who was quite happy to spout meaningless, a priori dogma at his readers.

    I think I've replied enough we're (if I understand you correctly) I agree with you.
    But, you don't, since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?

    To clarify, lets separate all these issues (my faith from my 'criticism' of how you've chosen to approach the question of god being an empty term vs etc)
    Even better: let's see you, for the first time in Christian history, try to tell us precisely what 'god' means (without using yet more empty terms), and exactly what it is that you worship.

    Even for your own peace of mind, you need to answer this challenge.

  22. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Spiltteeth:



    Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

    In fact, as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly.



    Not so; as I pointed out in an earlier post, I used to be a believer, and I have read and studied the theological classics (St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Suarez, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann, Pallenberg, etc. etc.), I have argued with scores of believers over the years (some of whom are university lecturers in theology), and not one of the latter could say what they believed in, or worshipped, except they used other meaningless terms in the process.

    Now, since you struggle to count correctly, I rather think that with respect to your good self, I am not in the presence of another St Thomas Aquinas -- so, it's a pretty safe bet that you can do no better than these characters.

    And, as we have seen, up to now, you haven't even tried!

    In response to this comment of mine:



    You replied:



    Once more, your accusing finger needs to be rotated through 180 degrees, since I pointedly said:



    Notice, you failed to tell us, not that you failed at explaining it after you had tried to tell us -- as you say:



    Compare that with someone who fails to attempt to count the three examples of 'meaning' I intended earlier (not you), with someone who attempts to count them, but fails to do so correctly (you).

    Can you now see the difference? One is a failure to do something, the other is to do that something and then fail to do it successfully. You have yet to try to explain your faith to us, in that sense, you failed to explain it, as I said.

    So, your reputation as the next St Thomas Aquinas is sinking faster with each new post of yours -- take my advice: quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences.



    It's not a contradiction, even if it may or may not be mistaken.

    In that case, your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count.

    And note, I said this:



    As I have explained this above, your continued prevarication here suggests I was correct in this judgement of you and your incapacity to tell us exactly what the object of your faith/worship is.

    Until you rise to this challenge, just like every other believer I have debated this with, and just like the Christian classicists I listed above, I think we can conclude that you have faith in a "you-do-not-know-what".

    The Christian mystics were far more honest, here -- they at least acknowledge this fact.

    And, as I also said, it would be very easy for you to put me in my place by becoming the very first person in the history of Christianity to say precisely what 'god' is (without using yet more meaningless terms).

    So, can you put your theological mouth where your poor logic and number skills now are?



    I think you are confusing the phrase 'logical fallacy' with 'error', 'falsehood' and/or 'mistake' -- which is not surprising since you seem not to be able to count correctly.

    In which case, you are the one who shows a marked contempt for "logic and the scientific method".



    If so, why did you post this?



    Bold added.

    It seems that you do not even understand your own posts, since, when I posted this:



    in reply to the above, you now say this!



    So, you both think and do not think that my "argument...is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated" (your words again).

    Now, either you spin a sentence around in your head until its angular velocity overcomes the forces of good sense, and out it pops, or you like being enigmatic, or you do not care what you say -- or all three.

    But then, what is this?



    It seems now that you don't agree with me, and think it important how 'meaning is generated'.

    So, all three then...



    Well, and once more, you could put me in my place by telling us what exactly you believe 'god' to be, instead of throwing up a smokescreen trying to hide the fact that you can't do this.

    In more than half a dozen posts now, you haven't even tried.

    And you wonder why I suspect you can't!



    Your alleged 'summary' of what I am saying is unnecessary -- all you have to do is read what I have said with more care than you have shown up to now -- learn to count, and look up the meaning of 'logical fallacy', among several other things --and refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe.

    I have chosen to write in plain English -- if that's not good enough for you, there's not much else I can do.

    Anyway, I take all this as further prevarication -- it puts off the evil day when you have to confront the unwelcome fact that you cannot tell us what precisely it is that you have faith in, or worship. It cannot be pleasant realising that, after all these years, all you can respond with is a smokescreen and then miffed silence.

    Moreover, it is a sign of just how desperate you are becoming that you are thrashing about for something -- anything -- to throw at me, like 'logical fallacy' (when it's plain you do not know what these are), 'contradiction' (when you seem to confuse this with 'falsehood' or 'error'), and 'scientific method' (when this is inapplicable here -- do you suppose we can carry out measurements and experiments to settle this?)



    Because it strikes me as decidedly odd that a lefty is prepared to take intellectual guidance from a Nazi (I know how you'd react if I were to quote Mein Kampf in support of anything I said); this is quite apart from the fact that Heidegger was a ruling-class hack, who was quite happy to spout meaningless, a priori dogma at his readers.



    But, you don't, since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?



    Even better: let's see you, for the first time in Christian history, try to tell us precisely what 'god' means (without using yet more empty terms), and exactly what it is that you worship.

    Even for your own peace of mind, you need to answer this challenge.

    "Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.

    In fact, as I have pointed out several times, you can't even count correctly."

    So many errors. First you presume (you do this a lot) that I have seen that I am good at accusation and not too good at substantiation.

    Now, when did I acknowledge this? If I were as rude, I could throw a 'your making things up- comment. But I'm not.

    As for the counting - I've been practicing! Surly you do not believe in the continuity of consciousness? In the ego?
    [FONT=Times New Roman]I’m somewhat confused with your use of ‘you,’ surely you don’t believe in the ego do you? A term just as empty as ‘god’ since it enjoys a similar status of self-referencing invalidity. So let us stop, you and I, our commitment to an illusion. Sometimes I worry you only apply the empty-word hypothesis to things most convenient to your own prejudices. You remind me of a young count Korzybski, Really I wish we could communicate in glyphs, but then I’d need Rosa stone.[/FONT]



    "Not so; as I pointed out in an earlier post, I used to be a believer, and I have read and studied the theological classics (St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Suarez, Luther, Calvin, Leibniz, Barth, Bultmann, Pallenberg, etc. etc.), I have argued with scores of believers over the years (some of whom are university lecturers in theology), and not one of the latter could say what they believed in, or worshipped, except they used other meaningless terms in the process."

    My point was based in logic. It is illogical to think that nothing new..well, it's so obvious need I really explain?

    "Now, since you struggle to count correctly, I rather think that with respect to your good self, I am not in the presence of another St Thomas Aquinas -- so, it's a pretty safe bet that you can do no better than these characters."

    Dearest, you have made so many presumptions here and then decided to answer them yourself. Is this -answer my honestly- how you generally investigate?
    Why do you think I've struggled with counting? You keep bringing it up so an important part of your argument may rest on this? Is it because I miscounted? Well, there many other explanations...but you choose the most convenient to your predjudes...
    Again, you presume I'm going to tell you what god is!
    Where did I say this!
    A less cultured person might say something about accusations being thrown around...I merely say I haven't explained my faith.

    "And, as we have seen, up to now, you haven't even tried!"

    Didn't I give a reason for that? I;m certain I did. How can I try when you claim I don't understand you? This is so obvious I am ashamed to have written it yet again.

    "In response to this comment of mine:



    You replied:



    Once more, your accusing finger needs to be rotated through 180 degrees, since I pointedly said:



    Notice, you failed to tell us, not that you failed at explaining it after you had tried to tell us -- as you say:"

    That is true, I should have said : How can I have failed to tell you when I haven't even attempted it? Surly this isn't a failure!


    "Compare that with someone who fails to attempt to count the three examples of 'meaning' I intended earlier (not you), with someone who attempts to count them, but fails to do so correctly (you).

    Can you now see the difference? One is a failure to do something, the other is to do that something and then fail to do it successfully. You have yet to try to explain your faith to us, in that sense, you failed to explain it, as I said."

    Oh, certainly I will not believe that you read over what you wrote right here. I haven't tried it - how can it be a failure?

    "So, your reputation as the next St Thomas Aquinas is sinking faster with each new post of yours -- take my advice: quit while you are a long way behind --, since you do not seem to be able to understand even simple English sentences."

    Another assumption. The next St Thomas etc when I haven't even said I was going to tell you what god was! So many assumptions you've been answering!
    Again and again you imagine my faith and then tell me what it is...

    "It's not a contradiction, even if it may or may not be mistaken.

    In that case, your knowledge of 'simple logic' looks about as convincing as your ability to count."

    Well, I can claim the same to you for the above 'I've read alot of stuff so nothing new can be under the sun for me' statement.

    "And note, I said this:



    As I have explained this above, your continued prevarication here suggests I was correct in this judgment of you and your incapacity to tell us exactly what the object of your faith/worship is."

    Now Rosa - did I ever make this claim? Or are you -yet again- playing make believe?

    "Until you rise to this challenge, just like every other believer I have debated this with, and just like the Christian classicists I listed above, I think we can conclude that you have faith in a "you-do-not-know-what".

    YET ANOTHER PRESUMPTION! Your post is positively filthy with them. You don't think there is any other way of avoiding the conclusion of having a faith in yadda yadda than by rising to this challenge!

    But, I know you've read some philosophy, so you know, especially in the past 50yrs, its greatest utility is not in giving answers, but in pointing out how best to ask the question...

    "The Christian mystics were far more honest, here -- they at least acknowledge this fact.

    And, as I also said, it would be very easy for you to put me in my place by becoming the very first person in the history of Christianity to say precisely what 'god' is (without using yet more meaningless terms)."

    Well, I know I'm no good at that darn logic, but if I agree with you...than how can I disagree with you...? And, lets be honest with each other, I did say the questions framing is problematic.

    "So, can you put your theological mouth where your poor logic and number skills now are?"

    No, I won't be having recourse to any theology except presupposing god is triune in nature.


    "I think you are confusing the phrase 'logical fallacy' with 'error', 'falsehood' and/or 'mistake' -- which is not surprising since you seem not to be able to count correctly."

    The counting again?! Does it have that much relevance on your argument? Would like to give me another simple counting problem, that I can solve and redeem myself? I will not believe that these are child -like low blows. This must be ESSENTIAL!

    "In which case, you are the one who shows a marked contempt for "logic and the scientific method"."

    Well, I have admitted my mistake...and you...


    "If so, why did you post this?"

    Oh my sweet pappy Rosa! How could you possibly ask such a dumb question? Because YOU have said that when I put your idea in my own words I got it all wrong? Was this a hallucination of mine? So I put it in my own words, gave it a second go, posted it in 2 posts, and now YOU SIMPLY MUST TELL ME IF I GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG SO WE CAN GO ON ALREADY for pete's sake. If wrong tell me how. Is this not simple. Do you need help...I'll post it a third time because I think your worth it, :
    god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term
    Now I've asked you to comment on this a few times now for the sake of my own mind (I hate being so pushy but else can I do?) address it please

    "Bold added.

    It seems that you do not even understand your own posts, since, when I posted this:



    in reply to the above, you now say this!



    So, you both think and do not think that my "argument...is based on a linguistic fallacy of how meaning is generated" (your words again).

    Now, either you spin a sentence around in your head until its angular velocity overcomes the forces of good sense, and out it pops, or you like being enigmatic, or you do not care what you say -- or all three."

    Well, I know I've this but I'll just put it with childish ease : Rosa answer good Question bad.

    "But then, what is this?



    It seems now that you don't agree with me, and think it important how 'meaning is generated'.

    So, all three then..."

    Well, it may seem that way to you...


    "Well, and once more, you could put me in my place by telling us what exactly you believe 'god' to be, instead of throwing up a smokescreen trying to hide the fact that you can't do this."

    I'll blow the smoke away : I CAN'T DO THIS.

    "In more than half a dozen posts now, you haven't even tried.

    And you wonder why I suspect you can't!"

    I never wondered that. Reading my mind again?

    "Your alleged 'summary' of what I am saying is unnecessary -- all you have to do is read what I have said with more care than you have shown up to now -- learn to count, and look up the meaning of 'logical fallacy', among several other things --and refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe."

    Well this is sheer bull. How could it be unnecessary when you accused me of misunderstanding when I put it in my own words. You say I misunderstand. I am not so arrogant. I wonder if indeed I might. So I put it into my own words and plainly ask - is this right?

    Oh, the counting again. You've chosen to mention this 6 or 7 (I'm still practicing) times now instead of saying weather I got your idea down or not in my 2nd go. Please tell me this is not pettiness but essential.

    I will assume the part " refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe" is a joke, since you've done nothing but foster presumption upon presumption upon me.

    "I have chosen to write in plain English -- if that's not good enough for you, there's not much else I can do.

    Anyway, I take all this as further prevarication -- it puts off the evil day when you have to confront the unwelcome fact that you cannot tell us what precisely it is that you have faith in, or worship. It cannot be pleasant realising that, after all these years, all you can respond with is a smokescreen and then miffed silence."

    It was pleasant when I understood [FONT=Times New Roman]‘god’ is not an empty term when put in the context of ritual. Just like the word ‘life.’ Its general dictionary definition is fine for 7th grader’s, buts its too general for the real world. In this sense, since it fails to objectively define life, it is incorrect. But ‘correct’ is the wrong measure, we ought to think in terms of usefulness. So that a virologist has a different definition of life. The objective definition changes within the context of the circumstances in which it is used. A lot of theory and science is like that. I could ask the definition of a photon, is it a wave or a particle? Well, it depends on whether it’s being observed or not. Why that’s like god! It’s only a meaningful term if it is, a priori, observed. How can that be? That is where old Heidegger comes in with his ‘circumference of meaning’ as it relates to subjectivity. Speaking of relational values, my clue about my idea of god is that he’s triune. That is, he only exists as a relation being, between his 3 parts, not an objective self-sustaining entity. Actually, not too different from a person; you’ve read Hegel. You know his idea’s that there is no ‘I’ without a ‘you’ so that we are constantly defining our selves, and that together you and I make a 3rd term, a ‘we;’ just so is god communally constituted, hence, ‘Being as Communion.’ So, we can’t know god, but we can position ourselves in correct relation to Him, in communion the word ‘god’ has meaning, but not separately as an objective definition, in that sense, as you correctly say, ‘god’ is an empty term. Meaning comes only relationally and in context of a human being (Hint of Heidegger –humans are the ‘keepers’ of the world etc since by their very objective/subjective split they keep rent the void etc) they That is all I’m going to be getting at, but you and I must work up to that, starting with linguistics. Obviously none of this will 'prove god exists', merely that it makes sense that the term god can have meaning if the nature of the question is changed. [/FONT]
    [FONT=Times New Roman]I hinted at it, you did not take the hint, that to come to your conclusion you must have started from a question : Is god a meaningful term (perhaps, I must assume since you ignored this in the last post which is why I didn't want to get into this until you told me how you asked the question and weather I understood you correctly, but I'm fearing you my keep this hidden, sub Rosa) To come to the conclusion you must posit it beginning -a priori- that god does have meaning (if you knew before hand you'd know the question makes no sense so you'd never ask it, you'd know the very question is flawed) and then try it the other way -god is a term with meaning. (if this isn't how you did it then forgive me -your silence forces me to presume) Both start is a priori posits. Now, if we change the posit to a different question , and begin with god is a meaningful term, I say we can show how this makes elegant sense (doesn't make it true, but it does make it useful, meaningful in a relational sense) if we posit -a priori -that 'god' is not an empty term, but at least has a triune nature. [/FONT]




    "Because it strikes me as decidedly odd that a lefty is prepared to take intellectual guidance from a Nazi (I know how you'd react if I were to quote Mein Kampf in support of anything I said); this is quite apart from the fact that Heidegger was a ruling-class hack, who was quite happy to spout meaningless, a priori dogma at his readers."

    Ha! I swear I didn't post the above before reading this! Again...you assume...I try to judge by content. So if Hitler had birthday parties I would not reject them based on that.



    "But, you don't, since you can't even get the simple things I say right -- or, are you content to agree with things that go right over your head (as they seem to have done)?"

    Well, I have tried again and Agni for you to read my simple summing up of your ideas, ask you -politely!- to correct me and show me where I'm wrong and you refuse! So, you can't say Its all my fault. Clearly I'm not content because I keep asking you.


    "Even better: let's see you, for the first time in Christian history, try to tell us precisely what 'god' means (without using yet more empty terms), and exactly what it is that you worship."

    Even for your own peace of mind, you need to answer this challenge.[/QUOTE]"


    Oh goodness. Yet another presumption. More of this is in answer to your imagination than anything I've said! Does that strike you as odd?
    I can't tell you precisely what god is is what I worship, simply that I have an idea and even if I did know it would not be communicable as truth cannot be communicated via objectivity -see that Badiou post to give you an idea why - and finally my Peace of mind has only a tangental relationship with this challenge - which I never said I could answer, I might add.

  23. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    16,778
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Spiltteeth:

    So many errors. First you presume (you do this a lot) that I have seen that I am good at accusation and not too good at substantiation.

    Now, when did I acknowledge this? If I were as rude, I could throw a 'your making things up- comment. But I'm not.
    Well, what I said was this:

    Well, as we have seen already, you are good at accusation, not too good at substantiation.
    Your incapacity to read simple English sentences once more comes to the surface, for where in there did I say you had seen this? That is why I used 'we', not 'you and the rest of us'.

    Even so, you are still long on accusation, short on proof -- and this failing is compounded even more by this latest post of yours.

    As for the counting - I've been practicing! Surly you do not believe in the continuity of consciousness? In the ego?
    Well, you needed it -- but your new lack of facility with simple words like 'we' is not reassuring.

    And now the same problem arises with the word 'you':

    I’m somewhat confused with your use of ‘you,’ surely you don’t believe in the ego do you? A term just as empty as ‘god’ since it enjoys a similar status of self-referencing invalidity. So let us stop, you and I, our commitment to an illusion. Sometimes I worry you only apply the empty-word hypothesis to things most convenient to your own prejudices. You remind me of a young count Korzybski, Really I wish we could communicate in glyphs, but then I’d need Rosa stone.
    If you can't grasp the ordinary use of 'you' without spiralling-off into such weird flights-of-fancy, no wonder you have problems with more complex words like 'god'.

    And, you seem not to be able to grasp the fact that when I use 'you' of you, that it refers to you (even though you also use the word 'you' to refer to me -- so this comment of yours is just another smokescreen to hide the plight you are in).

    So, if 'god' is a referring phrase, too (as this comment of yours seems to concede), perhaps you can tell us what it refers to?

    [Yes I know it is stupid of me to expect an answer -- since not even you know what it refers to. So, we can look forward to yet another smokescreen.]

    My point was based in logic. It is illogical to think that nothing new..well, it's so obvious need I really explain?
    In view of the fact that you confuse contradiction' with 'falsehood', 'error' and 'mistake', I think we'd be foolish not to ask you to explain yourself here -- since, it is apparent, at least to me, that you haven't used any logic at all (least of all where you now say you have). I seriously doubt you know what logic is.

    Again, I fully expect you will ignore this too, and throw up yet another smokescreen.

    Dearest, you have made so many presumptions here and then decided to answer them yourself. Is this -answer my honestly- how you generally investigate?
    Why do you think I've struggled with counting? You keep bringing it up so an important part of your argument may rest on this? Is it because I miscounted? Well, there many other explanations...but you choose the most convenient to your prejudices...
    Again, you presume I'm going to tell you what god is!
    Where did I say this!
    A less cultured person might say something about accusations being thrown around...I merely say I haven't explained my faith.
    Why, sweety-pie, as I have pointed out several times (so this is yet more prevarication on your part): since you failed to count correctly to the number three when you tried to comment on the number of uses of 'meaning' to which I appealed in an earlier post.

    If your memory is so poor, and you need reminding again, cutie-pie, just let me know.

    And, I did not presume you were going to tell me what 'god' is, since I repeatedly said that not one of you believers knows what 'god' is -- I even kept saying things like 'not even you know this'.

    So, once again, your incapacity to read simple English is plain for all to see (except, perhaps, you, since you can't read).

    How can I have failed to tell you when I haven't even attempted it? Surly this isn't a failure!
    I'm glad I could help you understand a simple English sentence. Except, you now go on to make the same mistake!

    Oh, certainly I will not believe that you read over what you wrote right here. I haven't tried it - how can it be a failure?
    Perhaps we can persuade some other kind soul here to try to explain the difference between not trying to do something, and thus failing to do it, and trying to do something and then failing to do it.

    I keep alleging the first, and you keep assuming I am alleging the second!

    Anyway, and once more, your repeated failure to tell us what you think 'god' is (in the sense I mentioned above: that is, you fail even to try) suggests that you can't do this anymore than the Christian classicists I mentioned above have been able to do, when they at least tried!

    So: put me in my place once and for all: rise to this challenge.

    Expect yet another smokescreen, folks!]

    Another assumption. The next St Thomas etc when I haven't even said I was going to tell you what god was! So many assumptions you've been answering!
    Again and again you imagine my faith and then tell me what it is...
    Too right you aren't going to do this -- or even try -- as I have repeatedly said; and that's why you aren't going to be another St Thomas Aquinas. At least he tried!

    Now Rosa - did I ever make this claim? Or are you -yet again- playing make believe?
    And where have I said you would? I merely challenged you to do so, and you have shied away each time -- and for reasons the rest of us can easily guess.

    You clearly find it easy/convenient to confuse a challenge with an assertion.

    YET ANOTHER PRESUMPTION! Your post is positively filthy with them. You don't think there is any other way of avoiding the conclusion of having a faith in yadda yadda than by rising to this challenge!
    Like you never presume anything.

    In contrast to your presumptions about me, mine are based on more solid evidence, in this case, your consistent failure to explain precisely what it is you have faith in/worship. You won't even tell us about this 'alternative method'.

    So, let me repeat this 'presumption': I think we can safely conclude that you can't tell us what this 'You-know-not-what' that lies at the heart of your faith is.

    [As we will see at the end, this 'presumption' of mine turns out to be correct.]

    Yet another golden opportunity to put me in my place has slipped through your fingers.

    Ok, so it's not too late to rescue your rapidly dwindling credibility: prove me wrong by being the first believer in the history of theism to tell us what precisely you have faith in.

    Or are you just an expert at throwing up smokescreens, hoping I'll give in?

    Well, even you will be able to see (ha! some hope!) that this tactic is not working; I have exposed the empty nature of your beliefs -- or, alternatively, your incapacity to explain them. And I will continue to do so.

    But, I know you've read some philosophy, so you know, especially in the past 50yrs
    50 years!?? Where did you get that from?

    its greatest utility is not in giving answers, but in pointing out how best to ask the question
    But, in over 2400 years of trying, philosophers are no nearer even that goal!

    No, I won't be having recourse to any theology except presupposing god is triune in nature.
    This means that 'god' is probably only dual in nature, given your incapacity to count.

    And yet, this sentence is without content, since it contains at least one empty term (which you have yet to explain), namely 'god'.

    For all the good it does, you might just as well have posted this:

    No, I won't be having recourse to any theology except presupposing schmod is triune in nature.
    But, what about this?

    The counting again?! Does it have that much relevance on your argument? Would like to give me another simple counting problem, that I can solve and redeem myself? I will not believe that these are child -like low blows. This must be ESSENTIAL!
    1) I repeat this several times, as I have also done above, since you are rather forgetful.

    2) It undermines your right to point fingers at me --- if you can't count, then complex issues in logic and the scientific method (which you recruit to your cause) are clearly beyond you.

    3) What, like your 'low blows' about my alleged 'errors' which you regularly fail to substantiate.

    Well, I have admitted my mistake...and you...
    Well, the only mistake I have made is to assume you could argue rationally, and would not throw up a smokescreen.

    Oh my sweet pappy Rosa! How could you possibly ask such a dumb question? Because YOU have said that when I put your idea in my own words I got it all wrong? Was this a hallucination of mine? So I put it in my own words, gave it a second go, posted it in 2 posts, and now YOU SIMPLY MUST TELL ME IF I GOT IT RIGHT OR WRONG SO WE CAN GO ON ALREADY for pete's sake. If wrong tell me how. Is this not simple. Do you need help...I'll post it a third time because I think your worth it, :
    god is an empty term because the words using to describe it are empty and it ends in a self-referential loop of trying to prove the validity of one term with another invalid term
    Now I've asked you to comment on this a few times now for the sake of my own mind (I hate being so pushy but else can I do?) address it please
    And yet, you said you agreed with me, and then proceeded to go back to the original point and admit it again. So, one moment you say you agree with me when I said that the generation of meaning is of no interest to me, since it is not relevant, the next you are telling us that the generation of meaning is important!

    And that is why I said you do not even understand your own posts.

    'Address' what exactly? I have commented on this in practically every one of my posts, pointing out that 'god' is an empty term, and the whole collection is a self-referential set of empty terms.

    How many more times do I have to say it? What more is there for me to say until you rise to the challenge (ha! some hope!) and show either were I go wrong, or why 'god' is not an empty term.

    [Notice, too, I did not use the word 'invalid'. That's another of interpolation of yours.]

    Rosa answer good Question bad.
    Eh?

    Well, it may seem that way to you...
    And your own words suggest it too.

    I'll blow the smoke away : I CAN'T DO THIS.
    Are you beginning to lose it?

    Or have you taken up verbal rambling as a new hobby?

    I never wondered that. Reading my mind again?
    No, just your badly constructed posts.

    Well this is sheer bull. How could it be unnecessary when you accused me of misunderstanding when I put it in my own words. You say I misunderstand. I am not so arrogant. I wonder if indeed I might. So I put it into my own words and plainly ask - is this right?
    No it's not.

    Hint: read my posts more carefully.

    Oh, the counting again. You've chosen to mention this 6 or 7 (I'm still practicing) times now instead of saying weather I got your idea down or not in my 2nd go. Please tell me this is not pettiness but essential.
    And, I'll continue to do so just as long as you 1) misrepresent my ideas, 2) accuse me of errors you cannot substantiate, and 3) claim I ignore logic and the scientific method.

    I'll stop only when you do.

    I will assume the part " refrain from attributing to me things I do not believe" is a joke, since you've done nothing but foster presumption upon presumption upon me.
    The difference, as I pointed out above, is that my 'presumptions' are based on mounting evidence (with each new post of yours, the smokescreen you are throwing up gets thicker and thicker, and your prevarication becomes ever more plain to see), whereas yours are based on interpolation and fabrication.

    So, now you attempt to rise to the challenge (but, why the larger text?):

    It was pleasant when I understood ‘god’ is not an empty term when put in the context of ritual. Just like the word ‘life.’ Its general dictionary definition is fine for 7th grader’s, buts its too general for the real world. In this sense, since it fails to objectively define life, it is incorrect. But ‘correct’ is the wrong measure, we ought to think in terms of usefulness. So that a virologist has a different definition of life. The objective definition changes within the context of the circumstances in which it is used. A lot of theory and science is like that. I could ask the definition of a photon, is it a wave or a particle? Well, it depends on whether it’s being observed or not. Why that’s like god! It’s only a meaningful term if it is, a priori, observed. How can that be? That is where old Heidegger comes in with his ‘circumference of meaning’ as it relates to subjectivity. Speaking of relational values, my clue about my idea of god is that he’s triune. That is, he only exists as a relation being, between his 3 parts, not an objective self-sustaining entity. Actually, not too different from a person; you’ve read Hegel. You know his idea’s that there is no ‘I’ without a ‘you’ so that we are constantly defining our selves, and that together you and I make a 3rd term, a ‘we;’ just so is god communally constituted, hence, ‘Being as Communion.’ So, we can’t know god, but we can position ourselves in correct relation to Him, in communion the word ‘god’ has meaning, but not separately as an objective definition, in that sense, as you correctly say, ‘god’ is an empty term. Meaning comes only relationally and in context of a human being (Hint of Heidegger –humans are the ‘keepers’ of the world etc since by their very objective/subjective split they keep rent the void etc) they That is all I’m going to be getting at, but you and I must work up to that, starting with linguistics. Obviously none of this will 'prove god exists', merely that it makes sense that the term god can have meaning if the nature of the question is changed.
    Where do I ask for a definition?

    Anyway, nice try, except you never actually get around to telling us what the word 'god' means without using yet more empty terms -- you admit you cannot know 'god', but then say you want to position yourself in relation to 'him', but you can't even say that, since not even you know what the alleged object of this relation is.

    So, you might just as well try to relate yourself to schmod.

    I hinted at it, you did not take the hint, that to come to your conclusion you must have started from a question : Is god a meaningful term (perhaps, I must assume since you ignored this in the last post which is why I didn't want to get into this until you told me how you asked the question and whether I understood you correctly, but I'm fearing you my [??] keep this hidden, sub Rosa) To come to the conclusion you must posit it beginning -a priori- that god does have meaning (if you knew before hand you'd know the question makes no sense so you'd never ask it, you'd know the very question is flawed) and then try it the other way -god is a term with meaning. (if this isn't how you did it then forgive me -your silence forces me to presume) Both start is a priori posits. Now, if we change the posit to a different question , and begin with god is a meaningful term, I say we can show how this makes elegant sense (doesn't make it true, but it does make it useful, meaningful in a relational sense) if we posit -a priori -that 'god' is not an empty term, but at least has a triune nature.
    I'm sorry, I can't make head-or-tail of this rambling passage -- I'd accuse you of being drunk again, but I do not want to be nasty.

    The only substantive point I can glean from this prize example of confusion (which is yet another smokescreen) is that you think I have assumed that 'god' has a meaning.

    But, I have assumed no such thing -- if anything, the exact opposite.

    Your incapacity to grasp this simple point (which I have made literally dozens of times), and your assumption that I assume the opposite of what I have said/assumed, should tell you why I keep pointing to your similar incapacity to count.

    Ha! I swear I didn't post the above before reading this! Again...you assume...I try to judge by content. So if Hitler had birthday parties I would not reject them based on that.
    Don't be silly, sharing a common practice (such a celebrating birthdays) with a Nazi is not the same as taking intellectual advice from one.

    Are you honesty saying you'd be happy to take advice from Hitler (on the Jews, for example)?

    The fact that you refuse to see this is just one more clue how desperate you are becoming.

    Your tactic now seems to be: The smokescreen just isn't working, so thrash about for something -- anything --, no matter how ridiculous it is, to throw at Rosa.

    Well, I have tried again and Agni [?? who's Agni?] for you to read my simple summing up of your ideas, ask you -politely!- to correct me and show me where I'm wrong and you refuse! So, you can't say Its all my fault. Clearly I'm not content because I keep asking you.
    And I pointed you back to my own explanation of my ideas, all expressed in plain English -- so, if that's not good enough for you, too bad.

    Notice, I do not try to summarise you, I just quote you.

    There's plenty enough ammunition in there as it is.

    Oh goodness. Yet another presumption. More of this is in answer to your imagination than anything I've said! Does that strike you as odd?
    I can't tell you precisely what god is is what I worship, simply that I have an idea and even if I did know it would not be communicable as truth cannot be communicated via objectivity -see that Badiou post to give you an idea why - and finally my Peace of mind has only a tangential relationship with this challenge - which I never said I could answer, I might add.
    No presupposition here, other than that you are a believer, since this is a challenge, to which you, like all other believers, cannot rise.

    And, I am glad you now admit, as I have alleged all along, that you worship a 'You-know-not-what', and from this we may conclude that even for you' 'god' is an empty term.

    This is because, every time you use it, you have no idea what you are referring to --, and neither has anyone else.

    So, for all you lot know, you might be worshipping schmod --, or, what is more likely, nothing at all.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosa Lichtenstein For This Useful Post:


  25. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida or Puerto Rico
    Posts
    3,233
    Organisation
    Sympathizer of: IWW, NEFAC, AFED, RAAN
    Rep Power
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard509 View Post
    The Pharisees said that for the sake of their place (social status) and their nation, Jesus must die. They did not have the authority to crucify Jesus, yet the Romans did. And the Romans went along with it, because of how much of a challenge Jesus was to their power structure. The Romans killed Jesus' followers for the same reason, insubordination. Refusing to recognize Caesar as your supreme ruler, and recognizing everything he stands for as morally wrong was considered a serious threat to the status quo, just as it is today.
    ...

    Do you seriously believe everything in face-value?

    The Romans were more afraid of the Hebrews and other local people they subjugated (who could cause revolt) when they took control of Palestine.

    Therefore, the decision to execute Jesus, if he even existed, was more out of fear of the local population revolting (which if we are to believe what is written in the bible, seemed to immensely dislike Jesus. The execution went ahead due to fear of what the local people would do if they didn't kill him and because the Romans seriously didn't mind executing people anyway.) despite giving out any "official reason" as being "insubordination to Ceaser."

    Even today, which you mention, being a communist/anarchist (recognizing the system sucks) doesn't mean I will automatically get executed or persecuted. Presenting a threat, whether real or perceived, to the status quo however can lead to that as the experiences in the 60s show (i.e. COINTELPRO, etc). Jesus presented little of a threat at the time (relative to the rest of the population) and I even heard of a historical account that when the people of Palestine (or Jerusalem) revolted against the Romans the christians did nothing to aid the revolt and instead fled (in which afterwards, or prior to this, began a love-hate relationship with the Roman Empire that later lead them to become the official religion of the Empire). So much for being "soo radical"
    "My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay

    "if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm

    "Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie

    "The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity
    By Forward Union in forum Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 2nd April 2005, 19:31
  2. Christianity
    By line_of_fire in forum Religion
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 14th October 2004, 01:50
  3. Chronology of Soviet History 1917-1953 - History
    By elijahcraig in forum History
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16th July 2003, 02:33
  4. Christianity
    By in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31st December 1969, 23:00

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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