FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: teflonfanatic on February 28, 2012, 10:54:35 am
-
I've checked half a dozen or so dictionaries(they're made by linguistic scholars) not one says Jesus is God but it says Jehovah is God.
American heritage
Jesus
Jewish religious leader who was crucified in Jerusalem after his teaching and reported miracle-working incurred the disfavor of the Roman government of Palestine. In Christianity, Jesus is seen as Christ and as the Son of God.
Jehovah
God, especially in Christian translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Oxford
Jesus
the central figure of the Christian religion. Jesus conducted a mission of preaching and healing (with reported miracles) in Palestine in about ad 28-30, which is described in the Gospels. His followers considered him to be the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God, and belief in his resurrection from the dead is the central tenet of Christianity.
Jehovah
a form of the Hebrew name of God used in some translations of the Bible.
Merriam-Webster
Jesus
: the Jewish religious teacher whose life, death, and resurrection as reported by the Evangelists are the basis of the Christian message of salvation —called also Jesus Christ
Jehovah
: god 1a
We all know Jesus is divine and a mighty spirit who was used to create the universe but if Jesus(John 20:17, Revelation 3:14), angels(Revelation 11:15) and linguistic scholars admit there's someone Jesus is subject to how is he equal to the most high outside of nature?
-
So, are you asking how Jesus is God? How they are one in the same within the Christian belief system?
-
Do you have way too much time on your hands??? Who cares what Linguistic scholars say, In this free world of the good ole, USA I can choose to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and if you want to believe this, it's your right too...
-
If you're looking for a dictionary to confirm your faith in the Lord and Savior,you've made your first mistake right there.
-
If you're looking for a dictionary to confirm your faith in the Lord and Savior,you've made your first mistake right there.
If you're looking for dubious source such as some variation of a 'bible' to confirm any baseless "faith", all you'll get are more unfounded and 'faith-based' assertions in one big circular merry-go-round of nonsense.
-
If you're looking for a dictionary to confirm your faith in the Lord and Savior,you've made your first mistake right there.
You do know the dictionary is made by language scholars right that's what a linguistic scholar is.
You also know that the most educated religious scholars and scholars in general turn to linguistic scholars for understanding words in various languages, your reasoning is circular and slighty biased.
thirdly did you see the three scriptures I posted? John 20:17, Revelation 3:14, Revelation 11:15 2 of them are from Jesus himself and one is from angels, those are the highest forms of life second only to the most high himself, I will take they're word first then linguistic scholars.
-
It is all :bs: anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.
-
It is all :bs: anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.
Sometimes reality sucks :)
-
It is all :bs: anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.
Sometimes reality sucks :)
Ultimately, so do self-delusions.
-
It is all :bs: anyway... People need to move past the crutch of "religion" and deal with reality.
Sometimes reality sucks :)
Ultimately, so do self-delusions.
I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.
-
I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.
As long as what happens in your head, stays there, (like Vegas, in way), then to each their own.
-
I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.
As long as what happens in your head, stays there, (like Vegas, in way), then to each their own.
You do realize you're asking a lot for people to bottle up everything that comes through their head. We wouldn't have any scientific discoveries if people didn't talk about what they had thought up. We wouldn't be able to talk either since, generally, people think about what they say before saying it.
I see it as believe (or don't believe) what you want, go ahead and be proud of your beliefs, just don't force it on me. That includes physical attacks (harming me, not assisting if I'm injured, etc), verbal attacks (calling me names, trying to convert me, etc), and (if you believe in them) mental/spiritual attacks (wishing harm on me, wishing illness, etc) simply because I do not follow your thought processes. Other than that, if we can live peacefully together, I really don't care what other wish to believe.
As far as the OP's question, again this is an issue of faith. It's like asking who's opinion is correct. If you don't want to believe, you don't have to. Or if you do want to believe, go for it. Either way you will find people who are hard set in their belief systems that will try and sway you.
-
You do realize you're asking a lot for people to bottle up everything that comes through their head. We wouldn't have any scientific discoveries if people didn't talk about what they had thought up. We wouldn't be able to talk either since, generally, people think about what they say before saying it.
That's fine, I wasn't referring to bottling-up their thoughts, just their faith-based beliefs, (unless they want to attempt to support those with some reasoning process which can be discussed - if there is no such process, that's probably something they'd want to keep to themselves).
I see it as believe (or don't believe) what you want, go ahead and be proud of your beliefs, just don't force it on me. That includes physical attacks (harming me, not assisting if I'm injured, etc), verbal attacks (calling me names, trying to convert me, etc), and (if you believe in them) mental/spiritual attacks (wishing harm on me, wishing illness, etc) simply because I do not follow your thought processes.
I agree with you, especially regarding the forcing of someone else's beliefs on others, (this includes the subtle or, not-so-subtle attempts at conversion by way of dragging those unfounded beliefs into unrelated topics of discussion ... that includes unsolicited 'praying' for others without their consent as well).
Other than that, if we can live peacefully together, I really don't care what other wish to believe.
As far as the OP's question, again this is an issue of faith. It's like asking who's opinion is correct.
Not quite; since not all "opinions" are 'created equally'. Some result from a thought process which includes facts, evidence and reasoning while others do not, ("faith" being one which does not as it has no rational basis).
If you don't want to believe, you don't have to. Or if you do want to believe, go for it. Either way you will find people who are hard set in their belief systems that will try and sway you.
Good point, also you may find some particularly 'fundamentalist' believers who will attempt to sway, (not by reason), but by way of irrational 'attacks' on challengers, (_not_ the challenging questions/arguments themselves), and by making empty declarations, (that is, those which they either cannot or will not back up). A few others have more open minds and are willing to examine alternate perspectives regarding controversial subjects.
-
I find them more euphoric then reality sometimes.
As long as what happens in your head, stays there, (like Vegas, in way), then to each their own.
But I don't go to Vegas so I guess that will never happen. Anyway I quoted linguistic scholars but I guess they're closed-minded, stupid and don't know what they're talking about to, let's not forget self delusional, according to your belief system your not allowed to believe an influential people or human rulers according to the merriam-webster and Oxford dictionaries of God. ::)
-
Anyway I quoted linguistic scholars
Partially, and adding your own interpretations to theirs, (definitions are intended to define terms so that people don't off-handledly alter them to suit).
but I guess they're closed-minded, stupid and don't know what they're talking about to, let's not forget self delusional, according to your belief system
No such assessment was made regarding "linguistic scholars" since their definitions do not "deny the deity of christ", (defining the terms "jesus" and "jehovah" neither confirm nor deny religious beliefs). As for your assumption, I don't have a "belief system"; something either exists or, does not and a belief or disbelief has no bearing on existance/non-existance.
your not allowed to believe an influential people or human rulers according to the merriam-webster and Oxford dictionaries of God. ::)
I generally tend to avoid the appeal to authority logical fallacy however, defining terms is a minimum requirement of language. Unless there is a common consensus of terms, you get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions.
-
Anyway I quoted linguistic scholars
Partially, and adding your own interpretations to theirs, (definitions are intended to define terms so that people don't off-handledly alter them to suit).
but I guess they're closed-minded, stupid and don't know what they're talking about to, let's not forget self delusional, according to your belief system
No such assessment was made regarding "linguistic scholars" since their definitions do not "deny the deity of christ", (defining the terms "jesus" and "jehovah" neither confirm nor deny religious beliefs). As for your assumption, I don't have a "belief system"; something either exists or, does not and a belief or disbelief has no bearing on existance/non-existance.
your not allowed to believe an influential people or human rulers according to the merriam-webster and Oxford dictionaries of God. ::)
I generally tend to avoid the appeal to authority logical fallacy however, defining terms is a minimum requirement of language. Unless there is a common consensus of terms, you get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions.
Sigh when logic overrides reason ok i'll quote and respond an order of your comments...
1. I looked up the definitions of Jesus, Jehovah, God and Atheism, I'm assuming your atheist can you tell me where I partially quoted merriam-webster, American Heritage and Oxford? Also I used the definition of the words to substantiate not alter
2. Got it so does atheism and theism and all other isms exist or not? "You said belief systems have no bearing on non existence or existence" Also yes according to the mainstream churches belief system they did deny the deity of Christ see to mainstream Churches Jesus isn't a religious leader he's God the Son literally God on earth in human form. The dictionary doesn't say anything close to that let alone call him God.
3. Then why are you overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy again assuming your Atheist.
@sarabtrayior: I do believe Jesus is the son of God like the dictionary says btw, I just don't believe he's God the son(different unbiblical and just plain backwards) and this world is not at all free that is self-delusional thinking right there. Also don't say who cares about language scholars to religious scholars :P
-
Sigh when logic overrides reason ok i'll quote and respond an order of your comments...
Since logic specifically encompasses reason, (reasoning), your lament is ... illogical.
1. I looked up the definitions of Jesus, Jehovah, God and Atheism, I'm assuming your atheist can you tell me where I partially quoted merriam-webster, American Heritage and Oxford? Also I used the definition of the words to substantiate not alter
I don't have an atheist on retainer however, I've looked up those words in the distant past. Assuming their meanings haven't shifted significantly, I understand the terms referred to.
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
2. Got it so does atheism and theism and all other isms exist or not?
[/quote]
"Isms" exist only as immaterial concepts. Such concepts can affect what the people holding them do but, have no separate existance in and of themselves.
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
"You said belief systems have no bearing on non existence or existence"
[/quote]
Not insofar as the "belief" itself goes, (which is distinct from _someone_ who holds such beliefs).
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
Also yes according to the mainstream churches belief system they did deny the deity of Christ see to mainstream Churches Jesus isn't a religious leader he's God the Son literally God on earth in human form. The dictionary doesn't say anything close to that let alone call him God.
[/quote]
Dictionaries are intended to define terms and assign consensual meaning to those terms. They are not intended to make 'religious judgements'.
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
3. Then why are you overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy again assuming your Atheist.
[/quote]
In what way do you see my dissenting viewpoints as "overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy"? My comment related to the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority", (argumentum ad verecundiam), which is "a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner."
-
Sigh when logic overrides reason ok i'll quote and respond an order of your comments...
Since logic specifically encompasses reason, (reasoning), your lament is ... illogical.
1. I looked up the definitions of Jesus, Jehovah, God and Atheism, I'm assuming your atheist can you tell me where I partially quoted merriam-webster, American Heritage and Oxford? Also I used the definition of the words to substantiate not alter
I don't have an atheist on retainer however, I've looked up those words in the distant past. Assuming their meanings haven't shifted significantly, I understand the terms referred to.
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
2. Got it so does atheism and theism and all other isms exist or not?
"Isms" exist only as immaterial concepts. Such concepts can affect what the people holding them do but, have no separate existance in and of themselves.
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
"You said belief systems have no bearing on non existence or existence"
[/quote]
Not insofar as the "belief" itself goes, (which is distinct from _someone_ who holds such beliefs).
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
Also yes according to the mainstream churches belief system they did deny the deity of Christ see to mainstream Churches Jesus isn't a religious leader he's God the Son literally God on earth in human form. The dictionary doesn't say anything close to that let alone call him God.
[/quote]
Dictionaries are intended to define terms and assign consensual meaning to those terms. They are not intended to make 'religious judgements'.
quote author=teflonfanatic link=topic=38522.msg502440#msg502440 date=1331266259]
3. Then why are you overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy again assuming your Atheist.
[/quote]
In what way do you see my dissenting viewpoints as "overriding the definition of God and labeling it as logical fallacy"? My comment related to the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority", (argumentum ad verecundiam), which is "a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority do on occasion constitute strong inductive arguments, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner."
[/quote]
1. ??? :BangHead:
2. So according to that logic numbers and emotions don't exist as they're also immaterial, I can't touch 0 or touch happy.
3. Elaborate please
4. So the linguistic scholars came to a consensus that Jesus is not God any questions? I'm just pointing out how the dictionary defines a word and comparing how others use it and obviously pointing to the dictionary as superior to their definition, if that's judging then so be it.
5. So appeal to authority can make strong arguments yet are often used fallaciously? you also said defining terms is a minimum requirement an a consensus is needed to not get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions. So it's a general consensus by linguistic scholars that a powerful ruler is a defining term for God do you accept this?
Merriam-Webster
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
-
2. So according to that logic numbers and emotions don't exist as they're also immaterial, I can't touch 0 or touch happy.
Correct. One can experience what numbers and emotions represent but, numbers themselves are an intellectual concept. "Emotions" are nominally the result of a mixture of chemical reactions, (not just in the brain), and irrational thought processes, (which are 'immaterial' in the sense that 'thoughts' are emergent-interconnected phenomenon of electrochemical synaptic functions).
3. Elaborate please
On what? The above?
4. So the linguistic scholars came to a consensus that Jesus is not God any questions?
No. They defined the consensual meanings of the terms "jesus" and "jehovah" which are not intended to draw religious conclusions.
I'm just pointing out how the dictionary defines a word and comparing how others use it and obviously pointing to the dictionary as superior to their definition, if that's judging then so be it.
If others wish to use words in ways which contradict the consensual meanings of the words in a language, nothing stops them except for the rejection of illogical redefinitions by others, (who are using established terms and their meanings instead). Yep, it's "judging" to accept or reject such consensual terminology.
5. So appeal to authority can make strong arguments yet are often used fallaciously?
The reason an appeal to authority is logically fallacious can range from a particular "authority" rendering an opinion outside of their field of expertise, to the absense of expertise, to sophistry. In other words, being an "authority" is not sufficient alone; the argument must have a logical line of reasoning/evidence/avoid internal inconsistance.
you also said defining terms is a minimum requirement an a consensus is needed to not get confusion, misinterpretations and false attributions. So it's a general consensus by linguistic scholars that a powerful ruler is a defining term for God do you accept this?
Only theoretically, (since we're probably inherently assuming that "linguistic scholars" are basing such definitions upon derived usage). There may be some points of contention when words derive from other languages and are variously interpretated/translated. Look at all the different versions of the "bible" for example; in these, the same 'verse' often has variant translations, depending upon which source is used. This becomes important when those translations/interpretations come up with different words, (which in turn, carry different meanings). Another instance occurs when E.A.Wallis Budge mistranslated several aegyptian hieroglyphs from a massively-slanted xtian viewpoint, (which was ironic, considering that for thousands of years, the ancient aegyptians never heard of xtianity. After thousands of years before xtianity existed, they noticed a new 'cult' appear among some disgruntled migrant workers but, that's another story).
Merriam-Webster
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
You'll note the words "worshipped as" and "believed to have"? That means that the meaning includes unsubstantiated claims in general usage; a definition does not validate those claims, that requires supporting evidence other than the non-evidence of 'faith/belief'.
-
I'm done, this is my last post to you in this thread, you'll find someway to get out of the points I presented. I'll conclude with the following
1. Electricity and chemicals exist I can see chemicals(microscope) and touch electricity although pain is involved and electrochemical is obviously the combination of both so by your logic this material can create immaterial(emotions)
2. And it's the consensual meaning that Jesus is not god, if it was consensual that Jesus was God it would have said it in the dictionary no? It's obviously the consensual meaning that Jehovah is God.
3. You say a definition doesn't validate a claim? Have you ever heard of the term "by definition" there's definitions for legal terms and lawyers go through college to learn those terms and use them to prepare and win cases. A definition does indeed validate a claim especially in the court of law
4. I'm done
-
1. Electricity and chemicals exist I can see chemicals(microscope) and touch electricity although pain is involved and electrochemical is obviously the combination of both so by your logic this material can create immaterial(emotions).
Near enough; my contention is that it's an emergent phenomenon process though.
2. And it's the consensual meaning that Jesus is not god, if it was consensual that Jesus was God it would have said it in the dictionary no?
No. While definitions are partly based upon usage, that isn't the only criteria linguists use to determine a word's meaning. They also rely heavily upon the etymology of the words defined, (that's the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time). A great deal of effort is supposedly expended in determining meanings as 'objectively' as possible so that such subjective matters relating to religion, for example, aren't introduced other than to define the terms.
It's obviously the consensual meaning that Jehovah is God.
That's an interpreted translation of Hebrew, (and possibly other languages around the same timeframe), which "is taken to mean "I AM" or "I AM WHO I AM". That doesn't lierally mean "god", (which is a derivative interpretation). Since the original term, (which was "Yhwh", no vowels), the usage has morphed, along with the attending meaning.
3. You say a definition doesn't validate a claim? Have you ever heard of the term "by definition" (?)
Yep, that phrase indicates 'in the literal sense'. Have you ever looked up the individual words which any definition consists of? I have, (yeah, boring but, I was curious to back-track the etymologies).
there's definitions for legal terms and lawyers go through college to learn those terms and use them to prepare and win cases. A definition does indeed validate a claim especially in the court of law
From the context, I'd say you are generally referring to 'legal precedence', (a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later similar cases), rather than "definitions" specifically. Either way, it is the veracity of evidence which validates, (or fails to validate), a legal claim.
[/quote]