Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Words/terms/titles/names have meanings...and those meanings are formally defined by experts (in whatever language they are in) in "dictionaries".
Thus, whatever we call or "label" anything...every word/term...we can turn to dictionaries to verify correct usage.
Where else do you suggest we look to find out the meanings/definitions of words & terms (any word or term)...and a description of their correct usage?
Words can have multiple definitions and the correct one to use depends on the context. So just picking a random definition of God from the dictionary may not be helpful due to the context in this forum.
An important example of why picking any definition from a dictionary is not good would be a contronym.
Quote:
a word having two meanings that contradict one another
Sometimes, just to heighten the confusion, the same word ends up with contradictory meanings. This kind of word is called a contronym. Sanction, for instance, can either signify permission to do something or a measure forbidding it to be done. Cleave can mean cut in half or stick together. A sanguine person is either hotheaded and bloodthirsty or calm and cheerful. Something that is fast is either stuck firmly or moving quickly.
That would be the desired outcome of the muzzling and harassment by intellectual midgets unable to cope with a God even minimally supportable by science.
Isn't there something in Buddhism about enlightenment turning old dudes into weinerheads?
Well, you have no problem stating the dictionary definition but for some reason, you claim you're being muzzled when asked to explain why you are choosing to use that definition out of the other possible ones. If you are talking about the God of Mystic there are plenty of reasonable explanations for what he experienced. I don't devalue the experience but to claim it as a Supreme and Ultimate Reality is pushing it. Attributing agency into it is way off the rails. I'm not saying they are wrong I'm saying they are not even wrong. A human being may not be even capable of ever understanding it. For anyone to claim positively they can and have is madness. So, once again, by your definition, I am a nonbeliever because I have never experienced the Supreme and Ultimate Reality. I mean so are you but for some reason, you won't admit to it.
That would be the desired outcome of the muzzling and harassment by intellectual midgets unable to cope with a God even minimally supportable by science.
There.
Just what I was waiting for.
That is the perfect example of why people want to muzzle you -- not your postions -- the way you present them. You do it all the time and you've been called on it repeatedly. Let me bring it down to the kind of level you enjoy using: does not play well with others.
Words can have multiple definitions and the correct one to use depends on the context. So just picking a random definition of God from the dictionary may not be helpful due to the context in this forum.
An important example of why picking any definition from a dictionary is not good would be a contronym.
Who, and by what authority, does anyone get to cherry-pick meanings and determine which ones are legit and which are not?
I find all acceptable and applicable.
This forum supposedly accepts God in all contexts...and no one is permitted to bash the beliefs of another.
God is not, and has never been, limited to the metaphorical & allegorical Deities and mythological creatures in theological texts and other writings.
Who, and by what authority, does anyone get to cherry-pick meanings and determine which ones are legit and which are not?
I find all acceptable and applicable.
This forum supposedly accepts God in all contexts...and no one is permitted to bash the beliefs of another.
God is not, and has never been, limited to the metaphorical & allegorical Deities and mythological creatures in theological texts and other writings.
If everyone decides to use different definitions then discussions will go nowhere. There is a reason different definitions for words are numbered. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
Quote:
1God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …
— Jame Schaefer
… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.
— Sunita Pant Bansal
bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
Greek gods of love and war
3: a person or thing of supreme value
had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4: a powerful ruler
Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates
In this forum it seems to me that definition 3 and 4 would be meaningless(in my opinion) due to the context of this forum. With definition 1 and 2 there are people whose idea of God would fall under those definitions but the God they believe in contradict each other so just giving that definition would not provide much detail about someone's idea of God.
Who, and by what authority, does anyone get to cherry-pick meanings and determine which ones are legit and which are not?
I find all acceptable and applicable.
This forum supposedly accepts God in all contexts...and no one is permitted to bash the beliefs of another.
God is not, and has never been, limited to the metaphorical & allegorical Deities and mythological creatures in theological texts and other writings.
There.
Just what I was waiting for.
That is the perfect example of why people want to muzzle you -- not your postions -- the way you present them. You do it all the time and you've been called on it repeatedly. Let me bring it down to the kind of level you enjoy using: does not play well with others.
Pleased to accommodate you, but frankly, I cannot think of a more appropriate adjective for those who are unable to cope with a God even minimally supportable by science than intellectual midgets.
Why don't you quote the post I should read. I've listened to Mystic plenty. I've made connections with his story and asked him for specific explanations to further match what I experienced with him. He never responds to the person only at them. He is not trying to connect, he is trying to instruct. He has not tried to listen to me or anyone to further fill in missing pieces because he has them all in his mind. I don't know why you guys think you know so much about science. I like Tegmark when I can understand him. I have yet to see an educated person speak in absolutes and positives like you guys do. They seem to talk more like me actually as in likelihoods. Maybe that's where I got it from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
