|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jamat, you self-righteous fuckwit
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do we really have to define the word natural then..sigh.
Absolutely! Paul's use of "natural" in Romans is notoriously tricky. In Paul's eyes, non-Jews being Christians is unnatural. Yet here we are. Being unnatural must not be so awful or unacceptable to God after all.
quote:
There is no escape for you from the world of circularity.
I don't recognize my beliefs in your straw man.
quote:
However this is only true when you are not allowing information in, when the system is closed. I think I would claim that the verse in question is not mine though I am seeing it with my lens. As this is the case, what I paraphrased is outside data. I am not then arguing in a circle.
If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mousethief: If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
It is not unless you can prove the paraphrase is contrary to and different from the meaning of the original..which it is not.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am not meaning to be rude just struggling to be patient with having my intelligence questioned because I see things differently to you.
This from the guy who tediously but persistently questions the faith and salvation of those who see things differently from him.
Nick, I question my own salvation. I was Catholic. There is no assurance of salvation. You don't know which side of the ledger you're on till you die. You better be careful of everyone starts agreeing with you. That is a bad sign.
Actually, this is misleading. To clarify, although I think one can have an inner subjective assurance of salvation, I do not think though that one's eternal state is defined by one decision. I am no Calvinist and think it is possible to fall away from faith and lose one's soul. As I understand Catholic teaching, there is no assurance of salvation or they would not need a state like purgatory which acknowledges human imperfection while retaining hope.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief: If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
It is not unless you can prove the paraphrase is contrary to and different from the meaning of the original..which it is not.
Are you serious?
I know this kind of nauve literalism exists, but I thought it had been beaten out of most of the denizens.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief: If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
It is not unless you can prove the paraphrase is contrary to and different from the meaning of the original..which it is not.
Are you serious?
I know this kind of nauve literalism exists, but I thought it had been beaten out of most of the denizens.
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief: If the question is, "Is my interpretation of this verse correct?" the verse itself is not outside information.
It is not unless you can prove the paraphrase is contrary to and different from the meaning of the original..which it is not.
Who said anything about paraphrase? I said interpretation. What you think the meaning of the original is is your interpretation. You can't check your interpretation against the uninterpreted original because you don't have the uninterpreted original. None of us does. We have our interpretations, you just as much as the rest of us.
You do understand what "interpretation" means, and why we can't say definitively why our interpretation is the "right" one, right?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
If I understand Jamat's question, he's referring to reading the biblical text. As if that's good enough to know what it means. No, Jamat, you cannot read first century Greek. Nobody alive now can.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
Comprehend what? That a verse says what it says?
That I cannot paraphrase it with relative accuracy? That it contains ideas exterior to my own thinking?
That it might actually mean what it actually states?
What 'literalism' is in play here?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mousethief: who said anything about paraphrase? I said interpretation
I realise that but it is ridiculous to say that an interpretation that is a paraphrase does not reflect a text accurately. It is what Martin60 would say. 'You cannot, not interpret'. But you can. The scribes of Israel did it for centuries. That is the primary message of the Dead Sea scrolls.
My point concedes that in a paraphrase there is interpretation but claims that my paraphrase,done only for simplicity's sake, accurately reflects the original enough to be classed as 'outside' information. Can we move on?
[ 14. July 2017, 03:48: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Can we move on?
I would be the last person to tell you what to do. But this is pure bullshit:
quote:
It is what Martin60 would say. 'You cannot, not interpret'. But you can. The scribes of Israel did it for centuries. That is the primary message of the Dead Sea scrolls.
My point concedes that in a paraphrase there is interpretation but claims that my paraphrase,done only for simplicity's sake, accurately reflects the original enough to be classed as 'outside' information.
You cannot use your paraphrase to prove that your interpretation is accurate. You have proved only that your interpretation and your paraphrase coincide, which would be surprising if they didn't. But you have only convinced yourself. If you came upon another Christian whose interpretation differed from yours, they would have no reason to jettison their interpretation and take up yours.
The point of Purgatory is to debate things, and where there is disagreement, to argue one's corner. You have not done so; you have only mumbled to yourself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake.
Sorry -- I missed this earlier. You did not (necessarily) summarize what the verse said. You summarized your interpretation of the verse. Anyone with a similar interpretation will find your summary accurate. Anyone with a different interpretation won't. How in the world does this simplify anything?
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake.
Sorry -- I missed this earlier. You did not (necessarily) summarize what the verse said. You summarized your interpretation of the verse. Anyone with a similar interpretation will find your summary accurate. Anyone with a different interpretation won't. How in the world does this simplify anything?
You and Mousethief are both right in principle, wrong in fact. It is correct to say that a paraphrase is interpretive by its nature. Certainly I admit interpretation. However, I think I would claim that someone who read the verse would agree my paraphrase of it is essentially in line with the basic textual meaning whether or not they shared my framework. That is my claim. If you think you can prove the contrary, please do.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Those who make claims have the burden of proof, not those who are unconvinced by them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mousethief : But this is pure bullshit:
What is BS is a claim that a text cannot be accurately paraphrased by a third party. People do this all the time.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mousethief : But this is pure bullshit:
What is BS is a claim that a text cannot be accurately paraphrased by a third party. People do this all the time.
I made no such claim. Did you even read what I wrote? I was very plain and laid out my argument quite explicitly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is BS is a claim that a text cannot be accurately paraphrased by a third party. People do this all the time.
Imagine a darts board. Accuracy means how close your darts are to the bullseye. Precision is how close the darts are together.
If one has two darts an equal distance apart either side of the bullseye, one might say that they've on average accurately hit the bullseye. But this seems to ignore the precision point that none of them actually have hit the bullsye.
If three darts land together but way off from the bullsye, one might say that the darts player is very precise, but not very accurate.
I think maybe you want to consider this illustration and the meaning of the word "accurate" when making claims about your posts.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That it might actually mean what it actually states?
What 'literalism' is in play here?
That one, right there.
Of course I am not saying you can't read. You are going to have to come up with a better red herring that that to wriggle out of this.
What is missing in the first question is the "I". A text never simply states something in some kind of pure objectivity - there is always an interpreter. So while it is commendable that in the part of your post I snipped you have paid some attention to the idea that there could be ideas exterior to your own thinking in play in interpretation, you are missing something even bigger - your own subjectivity.
You seem to be under the false impression that everyone must accept some kind of common sense meaning of the text, as if it is simply objectively exactly as you see it (and perhaps only as you see it). Why should anyone concede that?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
OK, I summarised in my own words what the verse said. I did it for simplicity's sake.
Sorry -- I missed this earlier. You did not (necessarily) summarize what the verse said. You summarized your interpretation of the verse. Anyone with a similar interpretation will find your summary accurate. Anyone with a different interpretation won't. How in the world does this simplify anything?
You and Mousethief are both right in principle, wrong in fact. It is correct to say that a paraphrase is interpretive by its nature. Certainly I admit interpretation. However, I think I would claim that someone who read the verse would agree my paraphrase of it is essentially in line with the basic textual meaning whether or not they shared my framework. That is my claim. If you think you can prove the contrary, please do.
Yes, this is the kind of common sense interpretation you seem to be advocating for. The Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid also advocated for this idea in the eighteenth century, suggesting that there is a plain meaning of objects and words, that they can be understood plainly (neatly bypassing Augustine's problem of hermeneutics, as well as Kant's deliberations on epistemology and the way knowledge is mediated by simply ignoring the problem - basically the philosophical equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and yelling "I can't hear you" repeatedly), and that hermeneutics just complicates everything.
This position is, of course, non-falsifiable. If I disagree with your interpretation of something, than my common sense understanding of the "plain" meaning is impaired by prejudice. Which is really fucking infuriating - hence this thread.
MT is quite right in saying the burden is on you to support your assertion, rather than upon anyone else to discredit it. There is another possibility - we could just look at the thousands upon thousands of instances where people disagree on the "plain meaning" of scripture, and conclude that common sense interpretation is bullshit. Which it is.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think this is a general issue with all texts, and part of the postmodern revolution was the insight that there is no objective interpretation, since we are not objects, but subjects. Of course, along with that, in literary criticism, the intentions of the author were downgraded.
So the idea of a plain meaning seems incoherent to me, for any text. 'The cat sat on the mat' might mean that a cat sat on the mat, but it could mean other things of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Dark Kinight: you seem to be under the false impression that everyone must accept some kind of common sense meaning of the text, as if it is simply objectively exactly as you see it (and perhaps only as you see it). Why should anyone concede that?
I am under the impression that there is an objective denotative meaning imbedded in most written text that is under normal conditions intended by the author and evident to the reader.
This is because the alternative, the inability to agree on what something denotes or signifies, renders communication impossible. It puts you in the extreme post modernist's conundrum of thinking that meaning of text is totally relativistic.
I do not, however, need to doubt that the meaning of the ideas denoted by Romans 1:20 depends somewhat on my interpretation to also believe that it also has a meaning intended by the author and the Holy Spirit that is objective and that is conveyed within the text itself (and, incidentally, reinforced by other Biblical texts.)
The idea here is that God created the observed world and It's corollary is that the creation is evidence of the creator. You can deny this, disagree with the text. You cannot honestly deny that the text states what it states.
The verse states: NASB "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal nature and divine power have been clearly seen being understood by what has been made so that they are without excuse."
What you think it means may certainly differ from what I think it means but if I ask you what it says, you and I are quite likely to agree that it contains an assertion by Paul that the creator has made himself evident in his creation as well of other things.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am under the impression that there is an objective denotative meaning imbedded in most written text that is under normal conditions intended by the author and evident to the reader.
Indeed. This is the common sense position. I have no problem with the first part (well - Augustine would have a lot to say about the inevitable loss when the verbum interium becomes "incarnate" in language, but I think broadly I would agree that the author's words more or less cohere to what they think they mean, at the very least). The problem is with the second part. It is all very well to communicate with the intention of being understood, but it is actually quite hard. Such that Schleiermacher, the father of modern hermeneutics, argued that it is far more common to be misunderstood than understood.
Even if one is not prepared to go that far, the idea that "under normal conditions" the author's meaning will be comprehended by the listener is very naive. Which is why I used that descriptor for your position initially (although I misspelled it, ironically in a post that was about effective communication. God was watching, and wanted to mess with me. Or autocorrect, which amounts to roughly the same thing).
quote:
This is because the alternative, the inability to agree on what something denotes or signifies, renders communication impossible. It puts you in the extreme post modernist's conundrum of thinking that meaning of text is totally relativistic.
No, it doesn't. quetzalcoatl may have brought up the hoary old chestnut of postmodernism, but the problem of interpretation is MUCH older than that. All the postmoderns really add is the doubt about whether or not the author's meaning is the most significant one. Long before Roland Barthes was the most fabulous one in several billion swimming toward the orb, communication was complicated by misunderstanding, and the conflict of interpretations. Once again, I point you to the myriad different interpretations of the "plain meaning of scripture".
Doing hermeneutics (and we all do it, whether we like it or not) is not to say that all meaning is relative. That would be an extreme claim. It is rather to say that communication is really hard, and that interpreting something correctly is not automatic, certainly not the result of common sense, and that you may have to support your own interpretation with reason and logic - one cannot simply expect everyone will simply agree, and if they don't it is because of prejudice. [/QUOTE][/qb]
quote:
I do not, however, need to doubt that the meaning of the ideas denoted by Romans 1:20 depends somewhat on my interpretation to also believe that it also has a meaning intended by the author and the Holy Spirit that is objective and that is conveyed within the text itself (and, incidentally, reinforced by other Biblical texts.)
The idea here is that God created the observed world and It's corollary is that the creation is evidence of the creator. You can deny this, disagree with the text. You cannot honestly deny that the text states what it states.
If only life were so kind. But as I have said, and as others have also at length, you do not have the presumption of the one correct meaning. If you want to contend for your position, do so. Argue it, support it. But you don't just get to state it and go on your way rejoicing, as if it is just so because you say so.
quote:
The verse states: NASB "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal nature and divine power have been clearly seen being understood by what has been made so that they are without excuse."
What you think it means may certainly differ from what I think it means but if I ask you what it says, you and I are quite likely to agree that it contains an assertion by Paul that the creator has made himself evident in his creation as well of other things.
Do you have any other insights as to what I might be thinking right now? I am sure others who have been reading this kind of nonsense from you for several days now, can hazard a guess.
This is really no way to argue, and is an insult to the intelligence of others. If you hold your position, and honestly try to convince me of it, well and good. That I can live with. But just telling me that you are right and if I disagree I am simply wrong is the kind of thing I would expect from a toddler.
[ 14. July 2017, 12:14: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very good post, Dark Knight. As well as the hoary old chestnut, there are plenty of other factors complicating linguistic communication.
For example, the insights of depth psychology seem to suggest that there is plenty of covert communication, not on the surface. Linguistics distinguishes the sentence from the utterance, so that the semantic content of the former may be only one factor in the significance of the latter.
Reader response theory shifted the focus from writer to reader, and their 'construction' of meanings.
Anyway, one could go on. The idea of a plain meaning of any text seems counter-intuitive today.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think that the word you are after is 'perspicuity'.
That is an amazingly stupid doctrine. If it were at all close to reality, there wouldn't be so much schism in Christianity.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
Let's take a "simple" two-word written phrase: "God's nature." What does this phrase "mean?"
Is it a reference to what God is like, to God's essential characteristics?
Is it a reference to our not-created-by-us environment, i.e. "nature," as originating from or belonging to God?
Is it a reference to some other possibility?
How do we determine which of these ideas is on offer here?
We can ask the phrase's author to tell us what she meant, should the author be available. Let's assume she isn't, as this is the case with much of what's been written throughout the last roughly 6,000 years since writing has existed (so far as we know, though I gather there's now some evidence which suggests writing may have begun much earlier than previously thought).
Obviously, we have to be reasonably fluent in the phrase's original language and writing system. The written phrase will convey nothing to a reader who is only familiar with Farsi or Japanese.
We also probably need at least some grasp of the culture in which the phrase originated. The word "god," for example, is a loaded term; say it to the average Christian, and it conjures up a being traditionally also labeled as "father," and "he," and having masculine overtones. Say "god" to a practitioner of Dabu, and the term is loaded with the notions of motherhood, "she," and assorted feminine overtones.
(Sorry -- I've run out of time. To be continued.)
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm going to take a moment to point out that the heat has been pretty much been drawn out from this argument, and that there's a perfectly good Biblical inerrancy thread you can re/join at your leisure.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ohher
There's also the grammatical ambiguity - 'God's nature' can mean 'God is nature'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to take a moment to point out that the heat has been pretty much been drawn out from this argument, and that there's a perfectly good Biblical inerrancy thread you can re/join at your leisure.
While this assessment is accurate regarding the majority of recent posts, I suspect that the fundamental subject matter is still a burning ember of scorching stupidity that is inevitably going to re-assert his willful ignorance and ignite anew the flames of discontent.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Clearly the only answer is to kill them all.
Always the end answer for the communist, eh comrade?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
There will be no ideology test from the commissars. Just your continued presence on this thread.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There will be no ideology test from the commissars. Just your continued presence on this thread.
I hear and obey.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ohher
There's also the grammatical ambiguity - 'God's nature' can mean 'God is nature'.
Though to be fair that ambiguity would not exist in Greek.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ohher
There's also the grammatical ambiguity - 'God's nature' can mean 'God is nature'.
Indeed. Hence my pointing out the existence of additional possible meanings, for those troubling to read that far.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The verse states: NASB "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal nature and divine power have been clearly seen being understood by what has been made so that they are without excuse."
What you think it means may certainly differ from what I think it means but if I ask you what it says, you and I are quite likely to agree that it contains an assertion by Paul that the creator has made himself evident in his creation as well of other things.
Do you have any other insights as to what I might be thinking right now? I am sure others who have been reading this kind of nonsense from you for several days now, can hazard a guess.
So let me summarise:
You deny denotative meaning can be accurately understood and replicated though you acknowledge it exists.
You deny that a third party could possibly predict what YOU may think the verse above contains and you resent an attempt to do it
(how dare anyone presume to tell you what it says..how infuriating)What nonsense to say 2 people could look at a text and concur on its content(not its meaning, mind.)
You use the term 'plain meaning' a term I have never mentioned here as some kind of proof text of a denial mentality; an accusation. I reject this straw man.
I do not deny That everyone who restates something interprets. In that sense Chinese whispers is a universal pastime. Lots of ideas are gained and lost in translation. All I have stated here, and you have tried unsuccessfully to refute, is that the verse above contains particular elements of meaning discernible to any educated reader.
If you refuse to acknowledge this intellectually, you certainly behave, linguistically as if it is true by even posting here. If you did not, communication would be impossible.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
We can communicate on this site, albeit to a less than perfect degree, because we share a language, a general culture and we live in the same timeframe. The same cannot be said for anything in the Bible.
Understanding Shakespeare properly takes study and it is in the same language and only a few hundreds, instead of thousands of years ago.
The only difference is if you believe God infused the book will the spiritual version of Google translate. If he did, he needs to update the algorithms, because it isn't working properly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm going to take a moment to point out that the heat has been pretty much been drawn out from this argument, and that there's a perfectly good Biblical inerrancy thread you can re/join at your leisure.
While this assessment is accurate regarding the majority of recent posts, I suspect that the fundamental subject matter is still a burning ember of scorching stupidity that is inevitably going to re-assert his willful ignorance and ignite anew the flames of discontent.
Yeah, stop pouring oil on the fire that's nearly out, do everyone a favour and shut this down. If it helps, MT is right; isn't he always? And I repent in sack cloth casting dust on my head. I promise to be good till next spring.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So let me distort
Fixed that for you.
quote:
You deny denotative meaning can be accurately understood and replicated though you acknowledge it exists.
No, I don't. I would emcourage you to read for comprehension, but I am not sure that is a possibility. When one is determined to misunderstand, communication truly becomes impossible.
Here I go again, throwing these pearls before your clueless snout.
An author or speaker has an idea, which - in order for them to even have - has to be mediated through language (this is the point at which Augustine talks about the verbum interium becoming incarnate in the word of language, at which point he would claim there is already a loss, as human language cannot convey all the possible meaning - but I digress). The author/speaker utters, which is then mediated again to the reader/listener, going through another process of loss. This is all exacerbated when there are different languages involved, and other things factors like different worldviews effecting meaning of terms - all of which are in play when trying to interpret biblical texts.
I don't "deny" authorial intent at all. I am saying it is up for grabs, and you have to do the hard work of convincing others that your interpretation is correct, not just state yours as if everyone agrees with you.
quote:
You deny that a third party could possibly predict what YOU may think the verse above contains and you resent an attempt to do it
(how dare anyone presume to tell you what it says..how infuriating)What nonsense to say 2 people could look at a text and concur on its content(not its meaning, mind.)
Why stop at one logical fallacy when you can collect the whole set?
Never said this, or anything like it. False dichotomy for sir?
quote:
You use the term 'plain meaning' a term I have never mentioned here as some kind of proof text of a denial mentality; an accusation. I reject this straw man.
Right. Because when you were claiming that the text in question means what it says, and needs no interpretation, you didn't mean "plain meaning." Thanks for clarifying.
quote:
I do not deny That everyone who restates something interprets. In that sense Chinese whispers is a universal pastime. Lots of ideas are gained and lost in translation. All I have stated here, and you have tried unsuccessfully to refute, is that the verse above contains particular elements of meaning discernible to any educated reader.
I'm not trying to refute anything, you moron. You are the one who has to support your claim. You haven't yet.
quote:
If you refuse to acknowledge this intellectually, you certainly behave, linguistically as if it is true by even posting here. If you did not, communication would be impossible.
I already burned this straw man earlier. I am not claiming communication is impossible. I'm saying it is hard. It is certainly nearly impossible when one party is unwilling or unable to communicate. And if I'm being opaque, let the reader understand - I'm talking about you, dumbarse.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
MT is right; isn't he always?
Let's just say you've never disproven a single thing I've said. Mostly because you think derision constitutes disproof, and it does not. Stating your claim multiple times does not constitute proof. Comparing your paraphrase to your interpretation does not constitute proof. I'm not sure you know what proof means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Jamat, how would you read this passage from Isaiah? An earth with four corners?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Sorry,
You are basically telling me I cannot read?
No. He's telling you that you cannot comprehend.
Comprehend what? That a verse says what it says?
That I cannot paraphrase it with relative accuracy? That it contains ideas exterior to my own thinking?
That it might actually mean what it actually states?
What 'literalism' is in play here?
I've been away for a month. I see your skull has continued to thicken during that time.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
Now that I have more time available to continue an experiment begun earlier on this thread, I see that there is almost certainly nothing to be gained by doing so.
Jamat, it appears you believe there's a difference between (1) an interpretation of Romans 1:20 and (2) stating what Romans 1:20 says.
Please explain how you, or any reader, gets to (2) WITHOUT first accomplishing (1). Alternatively, simply provide your interpretation of the verse, then repeat your paraphrase of the verse, and compare them. Are they different?
[ 15. July 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: Ohher ]
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Yeah, stop pouring oil on the fire that's nearly out, do everyone a favour and shut this down.
Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.
The esteemed Hellhost above is annoyed with the patience and calm being employed on this thread, because some of those individual posts would better suit another board. However, my guess is that the underlying fount of their frustration remains, and that the current polite posting through clenched teeth still warrants an outlet away from the civilized boards.
Unless you're ready to explicitly admit that meaning is not as obvious as you have previously claimed, and start actually trying to parse why you believe what you believe with actual reason. But I doubt that you can, or will. Because your kind of literalism doesn't co-exist with reason. It can't, because simplistic and literal readings quickly demonstrate the internal inconsistencies. So either it's more complicated than that (and, by extrapolation, god is a bit mysterious¹ about it), or it's all bullshit.
De-facto, your posts elsewhere are strong support for the bullshit hypothesis, and that irks people. But you're too fucking stupid to see that. And that's why I think there is likely to be continuing need for this thread.
¹ TRANSLATION: an asshole
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's right. Destroy my last vestiges of hope, why don't you? ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
shhhh There, there; just let hope go. It will make your job here much easier.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Now that I have more time available to continue an experiment begun earlier on this thread, I see that there is almost certainly nothing to be gained by doing so.
Jamat, it appears you believe there's a difference between (1) an interpretation of Romans 1:20 and (2) stating what Romans 1:20 says.
quote:
Yes, I do. What is the issue for me though is that the text carries objective meaning. How one gets to that seems to be the issue for others. That it has meaning apart from the reader or interpreter is what the post modern literary theorists deny. However, when it comes to the Bible, this thinking creates an impossible obstacle. How can I gain knowledge from it if it is I who determine what it means? My view of the Bible which is not literalist BTW, requires that I sit under it's wisdom, not reign over its accuracy.
In the real world if you read a verse and then comment on it then it is generally accepted you have first laid out what you are talking about. The one is the statement, the other is the interpretation. This is what is denied here ISTM. Here, there is an absurd demand for me to prove not my interpretation of it is correct but that my understanding of it is. My understanding of what it says, which is itself termed an 'interpretation' would involve a definition of all the terms so that MT ,DK and others can carefully pick it apart and in their wisdom pronounce my understanding of it flawed. This unreasonable and arrogant demand is called reason and logic in their parlance ..but stuff that for a game of cowboys.
Given we are dealing with language and degrees of subjectivity, it might be practical if not precise to use the denotative/connotative distinction. In defining terms you are denoting, in unpacking them you are connoting. While this is probably unsatisfactory to the pedants, it is IMV a useful distinction
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
MT was right - you really are a self-righteous fuckwit.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
MT was right - you really are a self-righteous fuckwit.
I'm always right. Jamat said so.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
