RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:27:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

It is if the assertion is untrue.


Then frickin' google it already. Bengali finches have a concept of grammar.

quote:

Anthropomorphizing is not limited to ascribing human thought.


When did I ever say that, or even imply it?

IWYW,
— Aswad.



tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:34:41 PM)

quote:

Note the bolding for emphasis, which you decided to remove. In the context of this discussion, I think it fairly transparent that you imagined the verse relevant to your claim about the primacy of language.


That is your interpretation, and far removed from my intention which was merely to draw attention to the presence of the word 'word'. There is no attempt at analysis, no attempt to explain or explore the meaning of the quote, in short no attempt at interpretation.

Be that as it may:
quote:

K
And unfortunately for you, the "Word" in that verse has (to adopt your turn of phrase) sweet fuck all to do with language.


So your position is that the word "Word" doesn't mean word? That word doesn't mean a unit of speech? You ask us to accept this without telling us whatever it is you claim the word "word' means? Or advising us why you know better than the author? Or why your interpretation(in the correct sense of that term) is the correct or only interpretation?

IOW, You are asking us to take this on faith. Good luck with that. Fail again but that's not the important part of the relevant post for you. The important part is the bit you declined to reproduce, and funnily enough, the reason why only a moron would ever take things on faith from you :

"There's a lot of merit in many of Buddhist precepts you promote here- things like humility, egolessness, sharing, kindness and gentleness. Qualities that are notably absent from your posts, which feature snark, "ego, arrogance and bad temper. People would take them (and you) a lot more seriously if you didn't so consistently and flagrantly violate the basic principles you advocate."



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:37:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

So your position is that the word "Word" doesn't mean word? That word doesn't mean a unit of speech?

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your hubris. Look it up. Or, you could just fucking read it:

and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

In Johannine Christology, the Word is God and Christ.

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 12:53:02 PM)

quote:

Kirata
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your hubris. Look it up. Or, you could just fucking read it:

and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

In Johannine Christology, the Word is God and Christ. .


There's a lot of merit in many of Buddhist precepts you promote here- things like humility, egolessness, sharing, kindness and gentleness. Qualities that are notably absent from your posts, which feature snark, "ego, arrogance and bad temper. People would take them (and you) a lot more seriously if you didn't so consistently and flagrantly violate the basic principles you preach.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 1:00:36 PM)


I am not a Buddhist and I don't "promote" Buddhist precepts.

But at least you deserve credit for being consistent. [:D]

K.










Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 1:13:03 PM)

Alright, in the interest of defining "word", here's an example:

«At the singularity¹, there was Logos, the Divine Will, and God was this Logos, and vice versa.»

Not really "word" in the usual sense; I invite you to look it up.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

¹ The "summit", the point; in this case the point all world lines proceed from.



tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 1:30:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Alright, in the interest of defining "word", here's an example:

«At the singularity¹, there was Logos, the Divine Will, and God was this Logos, and vice versa.»

Not really "word" in the usual sense; I invite you to look it up.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

¹ The "summit", the point; in this case the point all world lines proceed from.


I looked it up before I wrote post #262. Here: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/word?region=us&q=word

While you have had the good grace to demonstrate what you mean, there is nothing in the dictionary definition that refers even vaguely to any of the substitutes for 'word' you have used. All I sought to do initially was draw attention to one interesting conjunction of language and religious belief and let people make of it what they will. It's far from the central or most interesting (for me) issue here.

However, if we are to have a fruitful discussion, it seems to me that where people are claiming meanings for words that diverge significantly from the normal everyday usage of a term, the onus is on them to clarify their meaning or intention when they do so. People cannot be faulted for adopting the everyday meaning of words unless advised otherwise, can they?

As I am sure you are aware, communication breaks down once people depart from the common shared meaning of a word and invent their own meanings. While I have nothing in principle against anyone developing a new meaning for a word (that's how languages evolve), I have a reasonable expectation that they will advise me when they do so. I for one have no interest in an ongoing exercise in semantics.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 1:57:30 PM)

Give me strength...

The word is «λόγος»; it has no direct cognate; it participates in an idiom.

These people didn't write English, on account of there was no such language at the time.

You're right that people can't be faulted for not knowing that the mains cable must be plugged into the socket for the appliance to work, but I'm generous enough to assume that some are able to figure it out when they have a searchable instruction booklet at their fingertips. No, I'm afraid that whatever the fundies say, such is actually a prerequisite to using bible quotes for anything meaningful. Please take it as a compliment that I had higher expectations than proved realistic.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 1:58:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

It is if the assertion is untrue.


Then frickin' google it already. Bengali finches have a concept of grammar.

quote:

Anthropomorphizing is not limited to ascribing human thought.


When did I ever say that, or even imply it?

IWYW,
— Aswad.


I tried to google it but received a warning that the link contained possible maleware download.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 2:11:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I tried to google it but received a warning that the link contained possible maleware download.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html

K.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 2:47:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I tried to google it but received a warning that the link contained possible maleware download.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20615-first-evidence-that-birds-tweet-using-grammar.html

K.

Thank you.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 2:48:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I looked it up before I wrote post #262...

As I am sure you are aware, communication breaks down once people depart from the common shared meaning of a word and invent their own meanings.

If you actually knew anything about the material you quoted, you wouldn't have had to look up anything. However, if your knowledge was merely vague instead of nonexistent, the word you would have looked up is logos.

1. (often initial capital letter ) Philosophy. the rational principle that governs and develops the universe.

2. Theology. the divine word or reason incarnate in Jesus Christ. John 1:1–14.

Difficult as this may be for you to accept, sometimes you're just plain wrong and it isn't anybody else's fault.

K.



PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:38:12 PM)

Kirata, Aswad:

I looked up the phrase as quoted by Tweakabelle. 'Word' in that phrase has multiple possible meanings. I'd even hypothesise another that wasn't mentioned: that 'Word'* has some connection with 'Wyrd', which was form of ancient magic/knowledge (those two ideas not being easily distinguishable in the sense they were once and sometimes used) here in England and other parts of Northern Europe.

Now, me, I'm of the mind that I have scant patience with any text that claims that it's directed at ordinary people who can therefore learn from its wisdom - like the Bible - but, apparently, can only be understood by 'experts'. To me, that smacks of obscurantism. I've noticed that, unfortunately, there's been a strong vein of this amongst the religious elite over the centuries. (Who needs a Christian mass to be said in Latin, as was once the case here in England, when it can be rendered equally incomprehensible so long as you choose the 'right' English words for the job?) Why has there been such obscurantism? Well, Murray Bookchin, for instance, argues that it helps shore up a given church's authority and power (you can normally trust an anarchist thinker to shine the strongest floodlight on what the church most wants to hide). Just as no humans can understand God, no-one can understand his exalted servants on Earth either.

With a bit more good faith (no, I'm not using that phrase in its religious sense) in this thread Tweakabelle's comment could have just been picked up and given a bit of interested consideration. That's how it struck me that her comment was intended.


*ETA: The word 'weird' in modern English came from this.



leonine -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:43:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

And even in Europe, countries like the United Kingdom even still have compulsory religious education, and even religious observances at the school if I read the report correctly. Several other European countries are similar.

What the UK school system calls "religious education" these days is - except in Church-run schools - a mix of comparative religion and Philosophy & Ethics 101. There's very little in it that even a militant atheist could object to. Like some other good things in modern British schools, this is an unintended consequence of multiculturalism: they have to teach about everyone's religion, but they can't treat any one of them as the Truth, so they have to teach them all as just interesting belief systems. Compulsory religious observance went the same way.




PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:48:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine
What the UK school system calls "religious education" these days is - except in Church-run schools - a mix of comparative religion and Philosophy & Ethics 101. There's very little in it that even a militant atheist could object to. Like some other good things in modern British schools, this is an unintended consequence of multiculturalism: they have to teach about everyone's religion, but they can't treat any one of them as the Truth, so they have to teach them all as just interesting belief systems. Compulsory religious observance went the same way.


I must say, I've *loved* that development in education here. I've noticed that you can't go very far in comparative religion without ditching great chunks of the hogwash not just that other people were brought up with, but which you yourself were brought up with as well.








leonine -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:50:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

As for our kids being indoctrinated at schools, it's not always the fault of the parents.
In most state schools (ie, those paid for by government funds) don't give parents any choice in the matter when it comes to RE (religious education) and it is frequently not optional and the kids cannot opt out regardless of their faith.
In a predominantly catholic country, the RE being taught would be the catholic faith.
Over here, it is the CofE (Church of England) faith, ie Protestant; although sometimes you can choose a different faith school if you live close enough and are within the 'catchment area' of the school (and assuming they have room for your child to attend). Most of the alternative faith schools here are catholic.
Typical schools around here have a 20-30 minute 'assembly' every morning before lessons where prayers and other faith-related speeches are said. The timetable has at least 1 hour of RE a week, sometimes more. In many cases, they will only study the faith of the school and barely touch on other faiths in any favourable light or equal discussion.



Interesting, whereabouts is that? Here in Yorkshire, all the schools I know of are way too determinedly multi-cultural to risk any kind of explicitly religious event in case it was the wrong religion, and RE works so hard at not favouring any faith that it ends up presenting them all as interesting oddities.



tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:55:07 PM)

Aswad, I signalled clearly in my last post that I am not interested in playing semantic games.

Can we get back to the main issue please?

Previously you claimed that ""concrete concepts of a deity and the underlying posited realities that the concepts relate to" exist. You were asked to provide examples of such.

Thus far, the only examples advanced are, in order, my mother(!), POTUS and a picture of Marilyn Monroe. All of whom are human and do not qualify as "concrete concepts of a deity and the underlying posited realities that the concepts relate to". For example POTUS is self evidently a human invention in toto.

Do you have any examples to offer to support your claim that do not stretch either credulity or the everyday meanings of words? If you are unable to offer anything within the bounds of reason, do you still stand by this claim? If so, how do you explain your inability to offer any "concrete" examples of the matters you claim have a "concrete" reality?



leonine -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


I must say, I've *loved* that development in education here. I've noticed that you can't go very far in comparative religion without ditched great chunks of the hogwash not just that other people were brought up with, but which you yourself were brought up with as well.




My parents were humanists, but my well-meaning grandparents tried to save me with Bible-tales-for-kiddies books, and between that and school RE (which in them days was real RE) I had an intense Christian phase. My father wisely didn't argue, just gave me an equally basic book on the origins of all the major faiths, and let me come to my own conclusions.



leonine -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 3:59:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I tried to google it but received a warning that the link contained possible maleware download.

Maleware? Is that the word for all those viagra adverts that keep clogging up my inbox?



tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 4:01:42 PM)

quote:

If you actually knew anything about the material you quoted,


There's a lot of merit in many of Buddhist precepts you promote here- things like humility, egolessness, sharing, kindness and gentleness. Qualities that are notably absent from your posts, which feature snark, "ego, arrogance and bad temper. People would take them (and you) a lot more seriously if you didn't so consistently and flagrantly violate the basic principles you preach.



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125