definitions

[cuchulain]

Why are they so difficult for the religious?  I mean, I generally try to use dictionary definitions for all the words I speak and write.  Sometimes, yeah, I flub it up.  It happens.  There have been instances where I thought I was right about something, some word, and someone pointed out I wasn't.  So then I research it minimally, and it takes about two minutes usually to see where I made the mistake.  I got in a debate with someone one time who used the user name 'Nurse Ratched'.  Now for whatever reason, when I read "one flew over the cuckoo's nest", that name stuck in my head as 'Nurse Ratchet'.  I pointed out to the person that their user name wasn't accurate, to which they replied it was indeed and I should research it.  Turned out they were right.  It was a stupid, simple mistake...much like many people make often.  I apologized and admitted my error and the reason behind it and they graciously accepted and we moved on.

 

But for the religious, for whatever reason...it's like it's anathema to admit they were wrong about anything, even something so stupid simple as the definition of a word.  Why is that?  Maybe it's not just the religious, but I haven't noticed any atheists adamantly insisting that the definition they use is the right one even though the dictionary says otherwise...

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

Why are they so difficult for the religious?  I mean, I generally try to use dictionary definitions for all the words I speak and write.  Sometimes, yeah, I flub it up.  It happens.  There have been instances where I thought I was right about something, some word, and someone pointed out I wasn't.  So then I research it minimally, and it takes about two minutes usually to see where I made the mistake.  I got in a debate with someone one time who used the user name 'Nurse Ratched'.  Now for whatever reason, when I read "one flew over the cuckoo's nest", that name stuck in my head as 'Nurse Ratchet'.  I pointed out to the person that their user name wasn't accurate, to which they replied it was indeed and I should research it.  Turned out they were right.  It was a stupid, simple mistake...much like many people make often.  I apologized and admitted my error and the reason behind it and they graciously accepted and we moved on.

 

But for the religious, for whatever reason...it's like it's anathema to admit they were wrong about anything, even something so stupid simple as the definition of a word.  Why is that?  Maybe it's not just the religious, but I haven't noticed any atheists adamantly insisting that the definition they use is the right one even though the dictionary says otherwise...

 

 

I've been watching your arguments with Dan.  You try to argue facts.  He meets you with faith statements.  The problem is, faith is fact proof.

 

I'm going to take a break from the arguing.  There is no exchange of ideas and nothing to be gained.  Just arguing.  It grows tedious. I'm finding it unpleasant.   Truly, not worth the effort.

 

I hope you don't feel abandoned.  If you want a friendly chat, I'm here for you. 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I've been watching your arguments with Dan.  You try to argue facts.  He meets you with faith statements.  The problem is, faith is fact proof.

 

I'm going to take a break from the arguing.  There is no exchange of ideas and nothing to be gained.  Just arguing.  It grows tedious. I'm finding it unpleasant.   Truly, not worth the effort.

 

I hope you don't feel abandoned.  If you want a friendly chat, I'm here for you. 

 

Nah...i think i might move past the present madness myself.  Sometimes i have trouble realizing the horse is dead, as many here could attest.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Nah...i think i might move past the present madness myself.  Sometimes i have trouble realizing the horse is dead, as many here could attest.

 

 

The horse is worse than dead.  The flies are gathering.

 

I think the worst part is watching the wheel repeat.  Dan throws crap at us.  We respond.  Then he says that we're "just angry".

 

Well, I'm bored.

 

Happy New Year.

 

[cuchulain]

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

The horse is worse than dead.  The flies are gathering.

 

I think the worst part is watching the wheel repeat.  Dan throws crap at us.  We respond.  Then he says that we're "just angry".

 

Well, I'm bored.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Happy new year...and may the flies depart in peace.

[LeopardBoy]

There are times when the dictionary definition of words is woefully inadequate or too simplistic to convey the nuance of certain theological terms or their understanding in actual religious practice and philosophy.  The word sacrifice in the English dictionary isn’t going to go into the details or meaning of the Greek θυσια.

 

There are other times when the dictionary conveys the meaning of a word as understood by a modern culture that has an entirely different theological worldview than the one from which the word has originated.  The word anathema, for example.

 

The dictionary is a useful tool, but it has its limitations, particularly as certain terms are used in religions that deal more in poetry than prose.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

17 minutes ago, LeopardBoy said:

There are times when the dictionary definition of words is woefully inadequate or too simplistic to convey the nuance of certain theological terms or their understanding in actual religious practice and philosophy.  The word sacrifice in the English dictionary isn’t going to go into the details or meaning of the Greek θυσια.

 

There are other times when the dictionary conveys the meaning of a word as understood by a modern culture that has an entirely different theological worldview than the one from which the word has originated.  The word anathema, for example.

 

The dictionary is a useful tool, but it has its limitations, particularly as certain terms are used in religions that deal more in poetry than prose.

 

Yes.  All true.

 

 

[Kingfisher]

Definitions can change according to context, both literary and cultural. An interpreter who is "wrong" may simply be looking at things from a different point of view. For example, in a strict linear sense it would be wrong to associate the contemporary vulgar definition of "Sin" with the ancient Mesopotamian/Arabian lunar deity of the same appellation (represented by a bull, or an old man with a flowing beard - the father of the sun - He who presides over the court of death and provides abundance to mankind, whose name in Old Babylonian literally translates to "underworld of divine bitterness" but was sometimes known as "the fruit"), yet upon deeper reflection it seems that it would also not be precisely wrong. The etymological and semantic (and indeed, religious) histories of the word and precept are intertwined like a strand of DNA - separate, yet inseparable, and expressing themselves through the ages in myriad ways. That's the trouble with symbols, even (or especially) those as advanced and complex as the ones through which we (often clumsily) communicate today . . . we are all born into ignorance, and whether the signs be cast in gold or carved in stone or inked on papyrus or recorded in an electromagnetic field or woven into the very fabric of creation, when the fiery passions of man rule over the calm mind of reason and the peaceful spirit of loving-kindness, it's easy to miss the mark and mistake a child of god for a sacred offering. None of us are so wise as to grok the entire context of even the simplest motif, and in that light we should reject the mortal trap which ensnared Narcissus and grant each other, and ourselves, a degree of mercy when judging errors (or truths) of augury and exegesis. 🖖

[cuchulain]

Sometimes context can alter meaning, sometimes the age the word was used in must be considered...and sometimes its misused.