Wrong.

Post #43,784 by imric 6/28/02 1:47:14 PM 6/28/02 1:53:59 PM Reply	Wrong. "God" is the name for "God" in Christianity. Nope. It is a pronoun - used because you are not supposed to use the actual name in anything but worship. A pronoun. So you now insist that the word "God" can't refer to Vishnu, Allah, Zeus or any other divine entity? Where is your justification? Now you are manufacturing 'facts' to support your position? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric June 28, 2002, 01:53:59 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #43,789 by Brandioch 6/28/02 2:02:13 PM Reply	Well, please violate that rule right now. Nope. It is a pronoun - used because you are not supposed to use the actual name in anything but worship. Well, please feel free to violate that rule right now and POST THE NAME OF GOD. Also, will you please tell me where that "supposed to" can be found? Now you are manufacturing 'facts' to support your position? What? I say that "God" is the name of "God" in Christianity. You accuse me of "manufacturing 'facts'" for posting that statement. Okay, then tell me what the name of God is, in Christianity. Remember, you have to manage this WITHOUT proving my point that "under God" in the PoA is a direct reference to the Christian faith.
Post #43,791 by imric 6/28/02 2:10:24 PM Reply	Oh, I won't. As you may know, even though I am deeply suspicious of organized religion of any type, I DO consider myself to be a Christian. My refusal to write out that name for you does not change the nature of the word, "God". If you ae a Christian, and consider "God" to be name, and not a pronoun, then using the word "God" is a sin in itself, which would make reciting the pledge a sin. The use of "God" by Christians in the pledge is, by definition, use as a pronoun. Again, you are WRONG here. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,799 by Brandioch 6/28/02 2:31:12 PM Reply	I didn't think you would. Therefore, since you CANNOT post the NAME of "God", I will stand by my statement that "God" is the name of the god in Christianity. And you can wrap that all around your personal religion. My refusal to write out that name for you does not change the nature of the word, "God". No. It does not. But it does support my statement that "God" is the name of the god in Christianity. A fact that you claimed I had manufactured. If you ae a Christian, and consider "God" to be name, and not a pronoun, then using the word "God" is a sin in itself, which would make reciting the pledge a sin. In your particular sect, I'm sure it is. In your particular sect. The use of "God" by Christians in the pledge is, by definition, use as a pronoun. If it WERE a pronoun, then you COULD post the PROPER NOUN. Since you cannot...... "I can't because it would be a Sin." No, you can't because "God" is NOT a pronoun. Again, you are WRONG here. You keep saying that, but the best you can do to prove otherwise is to hide behind "it's a Sin". In other words, accourding to YOUR RELIGION, I am wrong. I can't begin to tell you how important that is to me.
Post #43,805 by imric 6/28/02 2:50:36 PM Reply	Now you ARE manufacturing data. Therefore, since you CANNOT post the NAME of "God", I will stand by my statement that "God" is the name of the god in Christianity. Stick by it all you want - it won't make it any more true. So... Because I won't use the name, that means you can say that the name is anything you want? No. It does not. But it does support my statement that "God" is the name of the god in Christianity. Let's see. I refused to use the name inappropriately. That, of course, means that any word you care to use is the actual 'proper name'? If I refuse to tell you MY real name, I suppose that means that my name is in reality anything that you claim it is? How illogical. There is no support for your statement, you simply repeated yourself. A fact that you claimed I had manufactured. I do claim that - and, it's a self-evident fact that you DID manufacture said fact. No matter what kind of 'wriggling' (see above) you attempt. You keep saying that, but the best you can do to prove otherwise is to hide behind "it's a Sin". In other words, accourding to YOUR RELIGION, I am wrong. Bahaha. Not in the least. I did not say you were wrong according to my religion. I said that I won't use the name inappropriately. I leave it as an excercise to the reader to look up the name in the Bible themselves. As to trying to say it's only my 'sect' that feels this way, I suggest you read the Commandments. Whatever. I think I've demonstrated your illogic sufficiently. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,809 by Brandioch 6/28/02 3:06:02 PM Reply	"I can not tell you that name for it would be a Sin!" Claim all you want that I'm manufacturing facts. pronoun: 1. The part of speech that substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and designates persons or things asked for, previously specified, or understood from the context. So, if "God" is a pronoun, then you can identify the noun (God's Name). So... Because I won't use the name, that means you can say that the name is anything you want? No. You made a statement that "God" is NOT the name of the god of the Christians. Fine. Then tell me what the name of the god of the Christians is. Now, you fail to comply with this request. My position is that you failed because I was correct and "God" is the name of the god of the Christians. You claim that you are refusing to comply based upon religious restrictions. ahahhahahahahahhahahahah ahahhaahahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahahahhahahaha hahahahahahhahahahahhahah ahhahahahahhahahahhahahha hahahhahahahahhahhahahha etc. Allah is to Muslims as ________ is to Christians.
Post #43,810 by imric 6/28/02 3:10:03 PM Reply	I did identify it. I pointed to where it can be found. If you can't be troubled to look, then that hardly invalidates my statement. But then, logic is hardly your strong point, is it? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,816 by Brandioch 6/28/02 3:27:21 PM Reply	I asked you to post it. Can you understand "post it"? "It can be found written in a book, locked in a box, buriend in a cave, guarded by three dragons on an island in a remote sea." There. I've told you where it can be found. If you can't be troubled to look, then that hardly invalidates my statement. Actually, it does. Instead of posting the name of the god of the Christians, you are saying that I should go look for it. That invalidates your position. You have lost the debate. Whether your religion will allow you to accept this or not is your problem. But then, logic is hardly your strong point, is it? You can't post the name of the god of the Christians because it would be a Sin and you're saying that >I< have a problem with "logic"? hahahahahahhahahahahahaha hahahahahhahahahahahahahha ahahahhahahahahahahahahhaha ahhahahahahahhahahahhahahaha
Post #43,818 by imric 6/28/02 3:35:49 PM 6/28/02 4:01:09 PM Reply	Ok. Insist on 'winning' this 'debate'. Anyone who reads this thread, who has ever actually read the Bible, knows how completely incorrect your arguments are. The name of the Christian God is not "God". I know the name - the fact that you refuse to look where I point does not invalidate that fact - any more than your refusal to look up a constant that I (for whatever reason) refused to quote from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics would enable you to set the value of the said constant. Well, you can use whatever fantasy-land value you wanted, I guess. You'd just get fantasy-land results. Like you did in this case. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win. Edited by imric June 28, 2002, 04:01:09 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #43,840 by Brandioch 6/28/02 5:46:47 PM Reply	How many chances do you want? Anyone who reads this thread, who has ever actually read the Bible, knows how completely incorrect your arguments are. Yes. ANYONE who has ever read the Bible knows that I'm incorrect. Except I've read the Bible. Whoa! You "logic" just collapsed there. The name of the Christian God is not "God". I know the name....... But you can't tell me because it's a "sin". Nor can you refer me to a chapter and verse. ... - the fact that you refuse to look where I point does not invalidate that fact - any more than your refusal to look up a constant that I (for whatever reason) refused to quote from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics would enable you to set the value of the said constant. And the reason you wouldn't state what a constant was would be......? I'm hoping you won't say "because it's a sin". Well, you can use whatever fantasy-land value you wanted, I guess. You'd just get fantasy-land results. Ummm, you do realize you've just transposed chemistry and religion. Maybe you would consider it a "sin" to reveal the constant. Chemistry class must have been VERY interesting for you.
Post #43,842 by imric 6/28/02 6:06:47 PM Reply	You have read the Bible? Then you have read the name of God, haven't you. Oh, yeah. You know it's not spelled G-o-d, too. Exodus 20 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Hmm. The LORD thy God. Sure doesn't seem to be used as a proper noun there. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,845 by Brandioch 6/28/02 6:18:12 PM Reply	So the name of God is "Lord"? From that paragraph you quoted, there seem to be only two options. #1. Lord #2. God Which is it? Or is that a "sin" also?
Post #43,847 by imric 6/28/02 6:37:35 PM Reply	Note. The LORD A title. thy God. A pronoun. Note the capitalization of the pronoun. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,851 by Brandioch 6/28/02 7:58:14 PM Reply	thy servant, thy hand, thy words. NOT A PRONOUN! All taken from your holy book. No. "thy God" is NOT a pronoun". No more than servant or hand or word is a pronoun. It is a NOUN! thy God. A pronoun. No. That is what is called a "noun". Look it up.
Post #44,191 by CRConrad 7/2/02 12:58:29 AM Reply	So, what do you call Him? What letter is he filed under,.. ...in the filing cabinet in your head? And if you, SkippyJoe, don't call him "God" -- which I very very much doubt, though -- then would you at least be prepared to join me in thinking that the absolute majority of Americans, as opposed to you personally, do think of their god as "God"? (Wanna bet most of them don't even know his "real" name?) And if the fact that most people (as in, pretty much everybody), in the USA of the year 2002, call the Christian god "God", if that doesn't mean that IN PRACTICE his "name" _I_S_ "God", then I don't fucking know what it's supposed to mean. You got any better hypotheses as to what it means? Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #43,892 by static 6/29/02 4:24:15 AM Reply	I'll answer. Therefore, since you CANNOT post the NAME of "God", I will stand by my statement that "God" is the name of the god in Christianity. Apart from the fact that this is getting needlessly semantic, there is one well-known place in the (Christian) Bible where He says His name: Exodus 3:13-15. Unfortunately, it's not cut-n-dried. The exact word is the Hebrew consonants "YHWH", which, due to a mis-reading, were rendered in English as "Jehovah" some centuries ago. Then scholars realized that the Hebrew vowels were for title "my God" which has different consonants. The correct vowels are conjectured to produce the word "Yahweh". Remember, too, that this is in a passage of scripture at least 4000 years old, probably a lot older but there is some evidence that editing may have been done to it about 2500-3000 years ago. So what does this funny name actually mean? The normal translation of the crucial passage is normally rendered as "I am", which is the closest we can get to in English of the Hebrew construct. AFAIK, the (Ancient) Hebrew phrase in question is a conjugation of the verb "to be" that (Modern) English simply does not have. "I am that I am" is one way to translate it. I've heard one commentator prefers the phrase "I will be who I shall be shall I be there" as being closer to the original. It can be quite circular stuff because it defines His existence in terms of His name which is defined in terms of His absolute existence. You might like [link\|http://www.yhwh.com/GINGN/gingn.htm\|this page] which describes this in more detail, and then some. I'm not 100% happy with the theology, personally, but I agree with the etymology. Oh yes, "God" has become a label or a title. In a monotheistic context there is no real need to name the one and only god, so he can be referred to be making the ordinary noun a pseudo-proper noun (AFAIK the same thing happened in Islam and Arabic). Now, most of society no longer carries a monotheistic context. This generates the problems this thread was spawned from. Fortunately, English has two cases of letters to provide two different words, as well as a definitive and an indefinite article to clarify the desired meaning. Aren't we lucky. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #43,918 by Ashton 6/29/02 4:15:21 PM Reply	Gracias - a thoughtful clarification. Finally. Would only add that: I Am just may be the pithiest actual commonality among ALL (??!) efforts to reduce the ineffable to ...something which word-manglers imagine 'means Something'. And this across: whatever is the arbitrary categorizations we force with such concepts as religion, theology, philosophy, psychology ad infinitum (inevitably suffused with etymology but Always with philology!) Hell.. it may be Both The First Word and equally The Last! (for when I no longer can say, "I Am" - I Aren't. It is impossible to 'say' "I Am Not".) (Now whenever.. the hoary, sanctimonious Corporate Religion Battle Centers finally come around to seeing this: we may call off the countdown to homo-sap self-immolation; our Regularly Scheduled Program(ming)) Hah!... Ashton {sheesh} ..buying Pig Flights, Inc. futures
Post #43,921 by Brandioch 6/29/02 4:41:25 PM Reply	I'll use this forum as my example. :) As I've stated before, when you have 10,000 "Christians", you have 10,000 Popes. Each with his/her own, slightly or not-so-slightly different, vision of what it means. Take the name of their god for example. Supposedly, a simple question. Even if it couldn't be answered (as your example was), the reference should have been simple. And I claim it was. The name of the god of the Christians is "God". If it were anything else, we wouldn't have gone through this many posts to get to it. Now, since we're talking about someone who shares an existance with The Easter Bunny (total fantasy), it is not unexpected that the majority of the followers NOT know the mythological origins. Nor the mythological trivia. And that is trivia. Here's a searchable King James version: [link\|http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html\|The Bible] The Hebrew JEWISH mythology did NOT get copied completely to the Christian mythology. "YHWH" does not appear in the King James version. When "God" is named in the Bibles the Christians use, the name is "God". Even I, a non-believer, had no problem posting a reference to the actual glyphs used in the original manuscripts.
Post #43,931 by Ashton 6/29/02 5:59:26 PM Reply	Maybe the thread was worth the trouble.. But I don't think the 'message' IS transmissible from a one to another one. AFAICS - the 'nature' of the etymology arguments above, really underscores the futility, at least yet in 2002: of significant numbers of homo-saps finally realizing.. [how to put it.. there are So Many Ways..] that all the words of all the organized (and most any disorganized) 'religions' are incapable of capturing 'Truth'. From such a fundamental disconnect with the inherent limitations of Language itself: no 'cure' is possible. It appears as true today as in the caves: the Fear of the Mystery that "I Am" [at all!..] - evokes the need to manufacture an acceptable fantasy of: Living Forever\ufffd SomeHOW. Literalism is the nail in the coffin of comprehension. The concept of life is meaningless without its opposite (at least in a play-environment which is based upon Opposites, 'Duality' which we think we see all around). It remains the insoluble quandary, but we will not acknowledge its insolubility. Most of us. So the Corporate Religion Wars shall continue, now techno-facilitated! until we are wiser? or there are none of us (to speak of) left to Fight the other remaining (perhaps mutants, by then). Pity. We coulda been Contenders. Ashton
Post #43,942 by Brandioch 6/29/02 6:50:32 PM Reply	Yup. Communication is the key. This has been a demonstration of how little people examine their own beliefs. Even the simplest questions. Yet have no problem with imposing those ill-defined beliefs upon others. The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. And indoctrination is so much easier than enlightenment or understanding.
Post #43,987 by imric 6/30/02 8:23:09 AM Reply	Nah. The real point is that you DO make logical errors, and never admit it. If God is used as a noun, pronoun, title or whatever (it's pretty clear that it's not a proper name, as you insisted) then the premise I objected to ("it doesn't matter that "God" is referenced then it should not matter that "Allah" be referenced instead", remember?) is flawed because you substituted a specific name for a term that can refer to the dieties worshipped in various religions. :) Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,989 by Ashton 6/30/02 9:03:51 AM Reply	However one slices it What began as an informal 'scout troop' kinda thing - was Just Fine ordinary jingoism before Ike messed with it. A gratuitous phrase which intentionally muddies "the Wall" is just that: gratuitous, nonessential for the original aims. It was a Bad move then - and it's odd (were we actually a nation whose members respected their own Constitution) that it has taken so long to undo the mischief. Which we see now: is unlikely to be undone, whether or not it might reach the USSC. But it's a great diversion from Cheney-gate, the dominoes collapsing re (apparently) many Corp 'audit' scams, etc. Sure bet always: the short attention span. Oh well.. these are those Interesting Times - wonder who issued US the curse?
Post #43,993 by imric 6/30/02 12:28:08 PM Reply	Yup. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #43,994 by Brandioch 6/30/02 1:21:49 PM Reply	So you keep saying. Yet, accourding to the dictionary, "god" is a noun. Not a pronoun. Now, whether "god" is also a title, whatever. (it's pretty clear that it's not a proper name, as you insisted) It's clear to you. And I'm saying that you're wrong. "smith" is a noun. "Smith" is a proper noun. A name. and so on. A noun, when capitalized any place other than at the beginning of a sentence is a proper noun (a name). I asked you to prove me wrong and tell me what the name of "God" was if it wasn't "God". You couldn't do that. You claimed it was against your religion. Whatever. Fine. In >YOUR< religion, "God" is not the name of "God". In the CHRISTIAN religion, it is. Now, you might THINK that your religion is Christian, but I've already been over that before. And you have STILL not provided a book, chaper and verse that shows the name of God. Yet you claim it is in the Bible. But I'm the one making the logical error? Something you claim to know, you can't say. The place where you claim it is written, you can't specify. But I'm wrong 'cause you know better 'cause of your secret knowledge. Pull the other one. It has bells on.
Post #43,996 by bepatient 6/30/02 1:42:27 PM Reply	Static posted the Chapter and verse [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=43892\|here.] You seem to be confusing his refusal to do research for >you< and the actual fact that the actual name >is< referenced in the book. Not the first time you've claimed victory because of your own laziness. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,997 by Brandioch 6/30/02 2:31:23 PM Reply	You just can't get enough of me. What is it with you and your fascination for me? You seem to be confusing his refusal to do research for >you< and the actual fact that the actual name >is< referenced in the book. Grow up. I did NOT ask him to do research for me. If he wanted to refute my point, then it is up to HIM to refute it. That is NOT doing research for me. That is proving his point/refuting mine. But that concept is alien to you. You exist solely on strawmen and lies. Since it seems so difficult for everyone else to do (down right impossible), I'll quote that reference. 13: And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15: And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. There. That's the quote. Now, Mr. Pathetic. You've missed the point of this thread. I've quoted or linked to BOTH references to "God's name" in this thread. From the original scrolls to the King James Bible. Again, this is mythology. The followers do NOT KNOW THE ORIGINS OF THEIR MYTHOLOGY. "God" is the name of the god of the Christians. If you do enough research, you'll find that god had another name. I've posted a link to the actual glyphs. Times change. That was over 2000 years ago. Now, the worshippers do not remember the original name. Now the name is just "God". And this thread is the proof of that. It's taken days and a ton of posts to get to ONE post that can reference the original name. Not the first time you've claimed victory because of your own laziness. More lies from you? But what did I expect? You're pathetic and ignorant and you, somehow, feel that it's my fault. Deal with it. Check the date/time stamp on this post: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=43880\|Here] Then read the link. (You can read, can't you?) You'll find MORE information on the subject than ANYONE else has posted in this thread. But you need me to be lazy so you can feel better about being so pathetic. My point was that "God" is the name of the Christian god. My point was proven when it took so long for any Christian to counter that claim. To summarize. I made a claim. Certain people said I was incorrect. Many, many, many, many posts ensued. Yet the information should have been known to any Christian. If their claims were correct and mine was false. The information is readily available on the 'web. As I demonstrated in the post I linked to in this post. Yet it was impossible for anyone else to link to it. Rather it was endless "you're wrong!". So, the way I see it..... #1. I'm right and God is the name of the Christian god. -or- #2. People here are so stupid they don't even know how to link to a reference to refute me. Now, I'll believe that #2 applies to you. You've proven it enough in the past. But I'm going to give everyone else the benefit of a doubt.
Post #44,000 by bepatient 6/30/02 4:27:40 PM Reply	Its simply because I love you A constant form of amusement. Your logic seems to be escaping you in this thread. Again. Static posted the relevent passage. So...it appears that the only one having a problem in this thread is you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,012 by Brandioch 6/30/02 8:46:27 PM Reply	The point escapes you, yet again. Or is it that you seek to avoid the point? There is an answer. That answer should be known to those who claim to know it. Yet there is always a reason why such cannot be stated. I do not believe that the "reasons" given are anything more than mere evasions. As I've said before, this entire thread could have been collapsed into one post. A simple reference. Yet it took so long to find that one post. Tell me why it took so long if not because I am correct.
Post #44,014 by bepatient 6/30/02 8:50:40 PM Reply	Becuase you failed... ...to >force< Imric to do your research. Instead, Wade, I'm assuming in the interest of showing you that Imric was indeed correct, posted the reference. Its amazing...that you claim victory in a thread because of right shift...right shift that >you< created by not admitting that others were correct. Thats why I love you. smooch You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,020 by Ashton 6/30/02 10:05:01 PM Reply	"Straw Man" may not be invariably correct an catchy epithet for your style of feigned benign insouciance, I'm thinking. I nominate Circle Jerk as an at least equal contender (and the substitution for debate of, not 'argument'.. but MPython contradiction.) Ooh! too.. Allah thanks you for your submission that: the Christian "God ==> Allah" too! (Except IF... were one, in Murica, to... actually substitute that "simple equivalent" in speech or writing...) Nawww I wouldn't try to explain QED to ya, Beep; I'd have to use a translation y'see? Then it would be like religion! and - subject to individual interpretation: the granddaddy CircleJerk of All Time\ufffd Practicing today, reciting.. One Nation, Under Allah, Indivisible... Of course too, once the Circle starts getting Jerked - one has to go Waay back to basics to unstick the needle from the groove. Oh.. and Repeat a Lot. Wun an Wun and Wun Makes Three... Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. ab=ba often but not always. Etc. Or as I remarked to a friend who carries large animals around to safe havens (sometimes wolves - 'lest the local "shelter" instantly annihilate them for convenience' sake. Muricans Love to off those cute puppies, after Junior focusses on the Nintendo, tires of feeding the cute guy and He Grows Up.. Flush it down the toilet when you're through with a now Old toy.): (She purchased a GMC Denali Giant UAV - perhaps one of the few who do so: who has a need for the size and shape of the monster, and a necessity to carry an animal for maybe hundreds of miles in lousy weather.) I suggested that the logo letters on the door could easily be arranged to spell Denial Anyway.. thanks for a contemporary reminder of just Why it Was that, in past when people set up tables in front of supermarkets - asking folks to sign petitions which were exact excerpts from 'The Bill of Rights' from the US Constitution: Lots of good Muricans declined, saying ~ they thought the wording sounded, "Communistic or somethin". Gawd/God/god/Allah Bless 'Em Every One! bow heads: Let us prey on Language.
Post #44,021 by bepatient 6/30/02 10:26:19 PM Reply	Disappointed Simply. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,026 by Ashton 6/30/02 10:57:18 PM Reply	Blessed art those who expect nothing for never shall they be disappointed. And I am rarely disappointed either, especially amidst the intentional muddling of language referents to make lame points: why, it's practically the Norm! (Why it may even be... how we got where we are today!) Then again.. Ashton Ike was lovable, but he warn't no Constitutional wonk. We see.
Post #44,051 by Brandioch 7/1/02 1:36:53 AM Reply	"Research"? You are an idiot. Becuase you failed... ...to >force< Imric to do your research. He SAID he KNEW it. Again. HE said that HE knew it. There's no "research" here. I'll demonstrate. I know the name of the President of the USofA. Now, care to tell me how much "research" I'm going to have to put in to post it? I know the country that Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of. Care to tell me how much "research" I'm going to have to put in to post it? But I'm some how trying to "force" him to do "research" for me. Either he KNEW the name or he did NOT know the name. Go ahead. I'll demonstrate. Post an incorrect name for the President of the USofA and see how many posts it takes me to correct you. Not how many times I'll say that you're wrong. How many posts it will take for me to post the CORRECT name. "Research". Well, I guess to someone of your limited intellect, that does count as "research". Mores the pity. Its amazing...that you claim victory in a thread because of right shift...right shift that >you< created by not admitting that others were correct. No. I'm claiming victory because, as I've just shown, proving me wrong would be the work of a single post. Since it could not be accomplished in a single post or 10 posts or 20 posts.... Well, how many times does someone have to say "you're wrong but I'm not going to tell you the correct information" before you realize that they do NOT HAVE THE "CORRECT" INFORMATION? THAT is the point. To "prove" my point, go ahead. Tell me that the name of the President of the USofA is Ralph. I'll be able to correct you in a single post. THAT is the "proof". One post. No "research" 'cause I'm claiming I already know the name. Just as imric claimed he knew the name. The difference, I can supply the name in a single post, upon request. He couldn't. Not in a single post. Not in ten posts. I'm sure that if we went for a HUNDRED posts, the cycle would be the same. That is all the "proof" I need.
Post #44,052 by bepatient 7/1/02 2:01:06 AM Reply	... He didn't tell me...so its anything I want. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,091 by Brandioch 7/1/02 11:01:05 AM Reply	That's post #1. Again, I don't have to wait for you to tell me something. I can demonstrate it easily enough by your continued refusal to. Tell me that the President of the USofA's name is "Ralph" and I'll correct you with his real name within one post. That's how it works. Someone makes an incorrect statement. Someone else provides the correct information. Not just saying "you're wrong and I know what is right". After a few repetitions of NOT revealing the "truth", I declare that the person making that claim does NOT possess the correct answer. Simple. Efficient. And it puts an end to the school yard games you seem so fond of. You see, mature adults don't have to hide behind claims of secret knowledge. Only children do that.
Post #44,112 by bepatient 7/1/02 2:54:03 PM Reply	Self-appointed... all knowing sentient. After a few repetitions of NOT revealing the "truth", I declare that the person making that claim does NOT possess the correct answer. You do this..even when it requires complete disregard for the reason for refusal. Its more like...you ask me the Presidents name..I say..."look it up yourself"..you then say "Its Ralph...and I KNOW I'M RIGHT because YOU didn't tell me when I asked" Wonderful use of >logic< You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,121 by Ashton 7/1/02 3:52:27 PM Reply	>logic< isn't Reason which may be one of the major Problems in an analog world now suffused with ^#@%^@# Boolean hype: that nice simplistic 'solution' for every problem. (Companies now say that they do not sell 'products'; they sell 'solutions' yada yada urp) I've been around techno for now several 'careers' - and since just after childhood. I suppose now that, one reason there are so few techno- people who ever ascend in the politics game is: too many of such imagine that the same kinda rote truth-table which might let them debug a program: has Anything! to do with the (maybe holographic?) far-infra-fuzzy reasoning which is associatively done in homo-sap minds !! Ever Notice (?) - that shortly after.. a new Problem arises (I mean, as defined entirely personally, here) - the Rolodex spins at >Mach1, looking for associations? (more often for loopholes). There may be something faintly-Boolean in aspects of the [search] function but.. the 'data' is manipulated most indescribably variously. The so-called mental 'data' IS NOT 1s and 0s. Nor 'operated upon' via commutative or associative MATH = that silly imagination is in our dreams. So nobody 'wins' ever, the guaranteed polar-opposite play which 'politics' has descended to: in Our time. In Other times there always were the logical-positivists of course: but, in less-noisy times - there was also actual debate, and with far less language corruption as occurs in these times of intentional Bizness pollution of all language. People actually possessed 'recognition vocabularies' in the ~100K range! (The verbing of nouns etc. would simply have been laughed into ignominy, on the second try.) My guess-to-date: the pollution of Language nears critical mass -- when no one will be able to tell what Anyone actually Meant. I have noticed this 'process' before I could assign a Name to it, all along - and I believe that it is now accelerating and that I can ID the prime mover: Unprecedented personal Greed, now almost-reduced to a Packageable Commodity, much like any other purchasable Application: (A) With Other-People's Capital: Buy this company. Sell off the assets. (People are liabilities) [Interim: get on More BODs for iteration insurance] Take carefully crafted Parachute and leave. GOTO (A) YAN verbed noun. (Or.. one Might... say..) Thanks IT droids! - for "enabling" [a current Pop-buzz meaningless building block for new inane TLAs] the efficient POG-2000 er.. Processing of Greed? Ashton, yeah well: youse guys didn't create the Climate your skill-set serves so well; you were just ~~facilitators~~ {ugh} enablers\ufffd. Like Oppenheimer et al, next ya gotta Live with the Monster you brought to full-immaturity, in exchange for: the corner-office rung, key to the Jr.-Exec. washroom + crumbs from the folks that [tacitly, of course] deem you also to be - easily replaceable commodities. Sorry about that last: best to save regularly.. (Of course.. it's never too late to repent..* :-\ufffd ..will supply wood & nails FOC. ..Gucci Hair-Shirts at modest mark-up ..flagellation by Miss Excellence-2000
Post #44,140 by Brandioch 7/1/02 6:26:16 PM Reply	Add a debate class to that and I'm all for it. Really. Okay, two NEW and MANDATORY classes for ALL high school graduates. #1. Debate (at least be able to SPOT the fallacies). #2. "The Tyranny of Words" (at least be able to spot the blab words). Once we can cut through the bullshit, we can start to change.
Post #44,137 by Brandioch 7/1/02 6:11:39 PM Reply	Let me go over the criteria AGAIN. #1. You claim to ALREADY KNOW the answer. #2. You claim that I am WRONG. Its more like...you ask me the Presidents name..I say..."look it up yourself"..you then say "Its Ralph...and I KNOW I'M RIGHT because YOU didn't tell me when I asked" Let me get this straight. You type: "look it up yourself" When just posting: "george w. bush" would actually be FEWER keystrokes. In other words, LESS work. Now, explain to me how your claim that you know, but would rather spend time and energy continually NOT telling me the answer is any differnt from.... Some idiot child's game where said idiot child does NOT know the answer but does NOT want to admit it? Or said idiot child does NOT want to admit that I am correct. No difference. The exchange is IDENTICAL. And you are spending more keystrokes explaining why you CANNOT or WILL NOT tell me the answer than just posting the answer. No. In that situation, I see two options: #1. You're caught in a lie and do not want to admit it. #2. You're a low grade moron with no life who gets off on right shift. Fortuanately, in your case, Bill, either can be applicable. Instead, I'll just declare that you don't know and are trying to avoid admitting it. Hence the 10x more effort refusing to tell me than just posting the answer.
Post #44,141 by bepatient 7/1/02 6:28:54 PM Reply	Its really no effort... Can't admit to yourself that your reasoning in this situation is incorrect. You confuse refusal of your >demand< with lack of knowledge. This is a flawed assumption. You use this assumption (your own) to invent conclusions. So it is exactly..."Look it up yourself"...."you didn't tell me so his name is Ralph." Moving along...nothing more to see here. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,150 by Brandioch 7/1/02 7:48:20 PM Reply	Tell me why and adult would refuse to post it. Can't admit to yourself that your reasoning in this situation is incorrect. Ah, but I will. As soon as it has been shown to be. You confuse refusal of your >demand< with lack of knowledge. No. I do not. It could very well be that you know information that you aren't willing to reveal. The question then becomes, why are you unwilling to reveal that information but are willing to continue posting that I'm wrong. When it would take far less effort just to CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT I WAS WRONG. Again, there is no difference between your continuing refusal to post information your claim you already know -and- Someone caught in a lie about what he doesn't know. Tell me why an adult would refuse to post information that said adult claims to know. Tell me why said adult would continue to waste time and effort posting that he knows the information, but refuses to post it. I'll give you my answer to those question. There is NO reason an adult would REFUSE to post information he had to support his position and, instead, continue to post claims that another person is wrong. There are lots of reasons for such actions from a child. Ignorance is the primary. Lies. etc.
Post #44,165 by bepatient 7/1/02 10:12:44 PM 7/1/02 10:13:45 PM Reply	Why are you talking about me? Ask the one who refused >his< reason. I believe the reason you made up was that he felt it was a "sin" in his "sect". I've a feeling (hunch...hmm...nay absolute) that the truth is quite far from that determined on your planet. PLUS...all of your bickering is >STILL< irrelevent...because what you were seeking >WAS< posted...it just happened to invalidate your original premise. Which, I'm sure. is why you are ignoring it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient July 1, 2002, 10:13:45 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #44,181 by Brandioch 7/1/02 11:33:21 PM Reply	NOW you're avoiding it?!? No. YOU were the one giving the example about how you would not "do the research" for me. I want to know what POSSIBLE reason an ADULT would have for withholding information that he CLAIMS he has. PLUS...all of your bickering is >STILL< irrelevent...because what you were seeking >WAS< posted...it just happened to invalidate your original premise. No. That's being addressed under a different thread. In THIS thread, you've made claims that you would "not do the research" for me when you had the information avaialable. That isn't "research". That is simply posting information you already have. Yet you are claiming that you wouldn't do so. Now, why possible purpose would that serve for a mature adult?
Post #44,206 by bepatient 7/2/02 8:03:11 AM Reply	Whatever. Point missed. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,195 by CRConrad 7/2/02 1:52:26 AM Reply	Sorry, BeeP, but you're wrong on both counts. Juggling the order of Bill's statements: Instead, Wade, I'm assuming in the interest of showing you that Imric was indeed correct, posted the reference. Nope. As Brandi said a few posts up, he, Brandioch, had posted links to other explanations long before Wade did. Becuase you failed...to >force< Imric to do your research. And since, as Brandioch -- AFAIK, correctly -- pointed out, the whole dancing-around-the-name thingy is more an Old-Jewish than a Christian-Bible thing, Imric should very well have been able to refute him by just posting one of those links, or some version of the infamous four-letter abbreviation -- which apparently wasn't taboo either for the Old-Jews or the Bible-Christians! -- itself. Why Imric didn't do that, we'll never know unless he tells us... But there again, Brandioch is right and you are wrong: Brandioch made a claim; Imric said "Not so!", and DID NOT support that counter-claim. But that was Imric's job, not Brandioch's; elementary logic and debating. Its amazing...that you claim victory in a thread because of right shift...right shift that >you< created by not admitting that others were correct. Thats why I love you. smooch And this is why I so often get annoyed with you: Not only do you blame Brandioch for the right-shift created by Imric, but then you have the GALL to dance around and be "funny" in this ridiculous way -- which WOULD be quite funny, if only you were RIGHT, but you aren't! -- the NERVE to gibber condescendingly at someone who, under the circumstances, would be more entitled to be condescending to you. That's annoying as all Hell; you just don't have any right to crow here, because you HAVE NOTHING to crow about. Fuck knows why you engage in this "debating" (to abuse the term) style only with Brandioch, but it certainly makes one understand, at least a little, why he calls you "mr. Pathetic". Since you don't do that to anybody else, please stop doing it to Brandioch too. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,207 by bepatient 7/2/02 8:22:19 AM Reply	Rofl If you can't figure out the last part of your own post...you haven't been playing our home game. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,284 by CRConrad 7/2/02 6:07:52 PM Reply	Quit the stupid laughter; it's still just not all that funny BeeP writes: If you can't figure out the last part of your own post...you haven't been playing our home game. That was apparently in reply to my earlier: Fuck knows why you engage in this "debating" (to abuse the term) style only with Brandioch, but it certainly makes one understand, at least a little, why he calls you "mr. Pathetic". Since you don't do that to anybody else, please stop doing it to Brandioch too. It's still much more of a nuisance than amusing. When your own kids are taunting each other, Kindergarten-style, ultra-repetitively going "Nyah, nyaah!" at each other for hours and hours -- is that what you mean by "playing our home game"? -- doesn't that annoy the heck out of you? Sure, again: If only you were right, at least, your "taunting" (or attempts at it) would be a little less annoying, rising just barely above Kindergarten-level. But since you aren't, your "taunts" are devoid of any semantic content; the exact equivalent of the kids' meaningless "Nyah, nyaah". So stop that silly yelling, willya? It's annoying the adults. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,289 by bepatient 7/2/02 6:37:33 PM Reply	Certainly it is.... ...quite possibly just not to you. Nice balanced request there...bub. You need to read this again...really you do. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,292 by CRConrad 7/2/02 6:44:59 PM Reply	Sorry about the imbalance, but... ...since it's you who are doing the (as I read it) "Nyah, nyaah!" thing, and Khasim is just refusing to back down because he is actually (again, as I read it) in the right, you could hardly expect me to be "balanced" about it, now could you? And no, I really, really, don't "need to read this again" -- that's the LAST thing anyone needs! :-) Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,049 by static 7/1/02 1:25:42 AM Reply	There is an error in your argument. Times change. That was over 2000 years ago. Now, the worshippers do not remember the original name. Now the name is just "God". And this thread is the proof of that. It's taken days and a ton of posts to get to ONE post that can reference the original name. The hour I posted my reply was the hour I read any part of this thread for the first time. Yes, within an hour. Come to think of it, I don't recall even reading the original post; perhaps I should go do that... FWIW, I could have taken a quite different tack and pointed out that He has many names and is called many things. That would have involved quotes from Isaiah, for starters. However, we are inured to thinking people have One Name, so my post. But even here that is not so! I am known as "Static", as has been pointed out, but my given name is actually "Wade". There: I have two names! I believe you, too, have another name by which you were once known. Why cannot God have many names, the word "God" itself one of them? Wade. PS. I am well aware that Christian Mythology (such that it is) does not incorporate Jewish Mythology. PPS. And if I remember on Thursday night, I'll do a straw poll at my Bible Study to see if anyone else knows the same thing I do about God's name. It's not as though the Exodus passage in question is even obscure or anything - it's right in the middle of the well-known story about the Burning Bush. :-) "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,058 by Ashton 7/1/02 2:31:30 AM Reply	You'll note that your reference refers to "He has many names". (!) Whoever decides amidst He/She/It/null - has already Chosen a comfortable, ever-personal 'Belief Delivery System'. Sorry but, electing the Bible as reference merely underscores the local main point: The words "Under God" is ever a gratuitous and inflammatory addendum within any Government-sponsored material. In case at hand, the action: A) Evokes the (coincidence! honest.. gosh) of the majority-religion's fav word-symbol. Omits countless others' fav word-symbols. B) Ignores the citizens who profess none of the above and pay taxes precisely as do all. C) 'Democracy' is largely about Government assisting in.. protecting the rights of the (many) minorities from the tyranny of the majority - and the homogenization and coercion which would result from allowing that tyranny to flourish. Periodically, more people have to die in order to remind of why certain matters were covered in the founding documents. This is necessary especially in times of decreasing attention span and increasing noise level. Ashton
Post #44,060 by static 7/1/02 2:38:42 AM Reply	I had to chose something. Besides, it is consistent with my posts so far in this thread. :-) I'm a bit bemused by the whole fiasco, actually, with the PoA. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the offending clause per se, but I also know you can't effectively legislate religion (for a variety of reaons, including the one prevalent in this thread) so I think the US should just elide the two "offending" words and move on. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,090 by Brandioch 7/1/02 10:55:05 AM Reply	You don't live over here, do you? :) There is a HUGE fight over this. Which is strange as it is only recently added. And it is obviously in contradiction of separation of church and state. But the religious amongst us will fight to keep it in. Camel Nose Tent The fight is really about whether religious references will be completely banned from government. There are still those here who hope for a theocracy in their lifetime. The problem is exasperated because we have an idiot for a President.
Post #44,092 by ChrisR 7/1/02 11:17:43 AM Reply	Recent? Which is strange as it is only recently added. Either you're (a) really old or (b) don't understand the time scale for "recent" in American politics. 45 to 50 years is ancient history - much like Watergate, Vietnam, McCarthy, Korea, etc...
Post #44,099 by Brandioch 7/1/02 12:29:45 PM Reply	In my day, people respected their elders! Wait. They didn't back then, either. :) Dragging a friend's 14 year old niece to the movies. "Wow, you're older than CD's." "Wow, you're older than MTV." "Wow, you're older than computers." "Wow, you're older than microwaves." And so on and so forth........ :) I think it is more the attention span that makes it seem so long ago than the actual passage of time. We are the nation of short attention oh look, something new.
Post #44,171 by static 7/1/02 10:33:32 PM Reply	Church vs State. So long as people with a religious opinion and/or outlook are involved in government, there will be arguments about how much of the former the latter has. There is always going to be a problem about where to draw that line - and I know I'm not telling you something you don't already know! My full, unfettered opinion about it is that I think it is wrong to leave "under God" in the official PoA because any attempt to enforce a religious POV is doomed to failure. Instead, I think a religious society should build up from the bottom: e.g. a country is Christian because that's how the people willingly live, not because the laws have that slant. The un-religious and a-religious should not be targets for religious enforcement. I also don't think you can ever fully separate church and state: even the abscence of religion can be regarded as a religion. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,230 by Brandioch 7/2/02 10:57:27 AM Reply	How about a diode? Since we can't (and, IMO, should not) keep people with religious beliefs out of government..... We can still restrict any and all mention of religion from government. Aside from the "you are free to practice the religion you want except for human sacrifice and the like". In other words, people can bring their personal religious beliefs with them when they enter office -but- those beliefs do not get passed on to others via the government.
Post #44,087 by Brandioch 7/1/02 10:37:33 AM Reply	Could be. Yup. That's when YOU read it. Like I said, there isn't much "research" involved. It's there for those who know it or who want to look it up. I'd be interested in knowing how many people know the "true" name of God from your study group. If anyone should know it, it would be people in there. But I'll stick by my point. As demonstrated here (aside from you), no one could reference his name. I even got "Tetragammon" as a name of God. :) But, then, there is also how Jesus refered to God as "Elohim" (sp?). Why cannot God have many names, the word "God" itself one of them? It can be. But if you say that, then you support my position to that "God" is the name of the god of the Christians. Maybe not the only name.... I'd also be interested in seeing if anyone claims "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" as names for God. Particularly since these are based on errors.
Post #44,131 by a6l6e6x 7/1/02 4:57:06 PM Reply	What? Never a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses at your door? :) Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #44,138 by Brandioch 7/1/02 6:13:03 PM Reply	Not in YEARS. You'd understand if you saw my house.
Post #44,164 by static 7/1/02 9:50:02 PM Reply	I'd like to make some distinctions. Why cannot God have many names, the word "God" itself one of them? It can be. But if you say that, then you support my position to that "God" is the name of the god of the Christians. Maybe not the only name.... Might I point out the difference between "the name" and "a name", please. And also the subtle difference between a or the name of something (or someone) and what it gets called. Semantic hair-splitting, possibly, but I feel it worth mentioning. But, then, there is also how Jesus refered to God as "Elohim" (sp?). Hebrew has several words for their god which describe different aspects of him. A short list: Elohim, Elshaddai, Abba. Short of borrowing them directly, English does not have equivalents for these words. In fact, modern editions of the Bible often have an introduction with several paragraphs detailing how they addressed this issue. It's a bit like the old saw about Inuit having dozens of words for "snow". :-) I'd also be interested in seeing if anyone claims "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" as names for God. Particularly since these are based on errors. Well, "Yahwah" is, but really only in Ancient Hebrew. Again, English does not carry the requisite language construct to translate it correctly. Wade. I understand this is largely because they are a linguistic construct English does not have. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,169 by Brandioch 7/1/02 10:32:44 PM Reply	Agreed. Might I point out the difference between "the name" and "a name", please. whoops. you're right. And also the subtle difference between a or the name of something (or someone) and what it gets called. Now it's my turn to split hairs. I still consider it a mythology. A personal mythology for each and every Christian out there. Now, what you call something in your personal mythology depends upon what you want to call it. Which is why I specified the modern US Christian. Which is why I said that the length of this thread proved my point. The personal mythologies have their roots in the older mythologies. But not everything gets carried over. Things that are linguistically specific, in particular, don't get copied over. To put it in concrete terms, think concrete. More specifically, think an old temple. The basic design gets copied for a new temple. But the terrain in the new area doesn't allow for a 100% perfect copy to be made (not to mention that the building materials aren't the same in the new area). So, asking where a door is, in the new temple, should be a simple question. "Where is the door in the temple?" Now, suppose someone says "the same as in the old temple". But the door is not in that location. Where is the door? Is it where it is in the new temple? Is it where tradition (and the old temple) has it? The question isn't so complex when we're talking about concrete items. When we're discussing a mythological character, it gets murky.
Post #44,199 by static 7/2/02 2:57:17 AM Reply	We'll have to differ. I wasn't going to be part of the "is it real/is is myth" question. So there isn't anything productive in me entering the "personal/communal" question, either. Except to say this: I, personally, usually address my God as "Lord God" or "Father God", both of them titles. I cannot speak about US Christians, but all of the AU Christians I know would use the same or similar titles. And probably not be bothered about whether it's a title or a name for God. :-) And lastly, while we do regard our relationship as personal, we also believe that it is the same God we all have a personal relationship with. Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,196 by CRConrad 7/2/02 2:13:55 AM Reply	Uh... "God is a four-letter word", I think. But I'll stick by my point. As demonstrated here (aside from you), no one could reference his name. I even got "Tetragammon" as a name of God. :) That was "Tetragrammaton", IIRC (in a post by Don "Silverlock" Richards?). And, if you try to recall your basic Greek -- no Classical studies required! Just chemistry and geometry -- "tetra" means "four". And a "grammat-on" (or "gramma-ton"?), couldn't that be like an electr-on or positr-on, a "smallest element" of something...? Of "Grammar", or speech, perhaps? My guess is, it means "letter". Don't look down on everybody else quite so much, please, Khas: The term looked familiar to me too, and thinking about it for a bit and coming to the conclusion that it probably means "the four letters", it seems reasonable to me to assume that it is a reference to 'YHWH' (or 'JHVH', or whatever) -- it is, too!, the name of god. Well, a name of god. :-) (Yup, still the Christian god -- 't'was His Bible what was written in Greek.) Now go grovel to Don (if it was him) a bit! Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,231 by Brandioch 7/2/02 10:58:57 AM Reply	Mhy speling sux. Yup. I can't remember how that is spelled without hitting a dictionary.
Post #44,192 by CRConrad 7/2/02 1:23:29 AM Reply	Nice of you to agree with Brandishim's original point. (I just thought it might bear pointing out that precisely that is what you are doing...) Wade writes: Now, most of society no longer carries a monotheistic context. That depends on how you define "most of society". Most societies, globally? No, probably not. But most of, for want of a better word, "Western" society[]? Oh, it most definitely does. For instance -- to return to the origin of this thread -- do you think that it even occured* to Eisenhower (or his advisors, or whoever) to add "under the Gods" to that pledge of allegiance? So, well, if nobody (except Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently -- and "blasphemers" like me, of course) can ever use His "real" name, and the word "God", as you say, "has become a label or a title"... Then isn't that, in effect, "his name"? At least enough so for us to be able to state pretty damn certainly just who it means, in the Pledge? []: The one encompassing Europe, North (and most of south) America, the Antipodes, and large chunks of the rest of the world (of which, in case you weren't keeping count, there is only Asia and Africa left). Christian R. Conrad* Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,306 by static 7/3/02 1:47:52 AM Reply	Hello Christian. Nice of you to agree with Brandishim's original point. (I just thought it might bear pointing out that precisely that is what you are doing...) That may be - but I suspect our reasons for supporting the same action are different. Wade writes: Now, most of society no longer carries a monotheistic context. That depends on how you define "most of society". Most societies, globally? No, probably not. But most of, for want of a better word, "Western" society? Oh, it most definitely does. That wasn't what I meant. I should have said something "awareness" instead of "context" and re-written the sentence to suit. Secularism, religious exploration, alternative spirituality, even globalism have all changed what could be called western societies such that a monotheistic religion cannot be regarded as the only choice. Put another way, people wanting religion of the non-Christian kind have a lot of popular, easy-to-find options nowadays. So, well, if nobody (except Jehovah's Witnesses, apparently -- and "blasphemers" like me, of course) can ever use His "real" name, and the word "God", as you say, "has become a label or a title"... Then isn't that, in effect, "his name"? I never asserted one way or the other that Christians could not use the name "Yahweh". The closest I got was referring to the fact that the Ancient Hebrews thought it too holy to utter. I don't personally use it because I haven't been brought up to use it, that's all. However, the title "God" has effectively become a name, yes. Was there a point there? :-) Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #44,378 by CRConrad 7/3/02 2:57:40 PM Reply	Point? Just the first line (never mind why). Hi yerself! :-)
Post #43,801 by ChrisR 6/28/02 2:41:04 PM Reply	God, god, and gods I say that "God" is the name of "God" in Christianity. Nope. From the Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father...Son...Holy Spirit", etc.. ad nauseam". Christians profess a belief in God but the name of this god is not God. The etymology of the word is anglo-saxon and is not tied intrinsically to the Christian God. Indeed, the term God seems, at least from a western perspective, more tied to Hebrew rooted religions (however loosely rooted). Not many english speakers would be willing to state that the Jews and Muslims don't also believe in G_d. Now, roughly speaking, the term Allah is translated into the English language as God. If you don't translate the term, and instead import the Arabic name, then it takes on a more specific connotation of a particular religion that believes in God. Bottom line is that God is a much more inclusive term than Allah, such that Judeo-Christians and Islamics alike can profess the pledge without breaking a sweat. Of course, the real point of your analogy seems to lost in the muddled way you are trying to pin the term God to a specific form of monotheism. Seems to me that it would be more effective to substitute the term with either an atheistic, agnostic or polytheistic term to get the desired reaction. The Pledge uses generic terminology that was crafted to not offend any particular monotheistic religion - it intentionally offends those who fall outside of this category.
Post #43,811 by Brandioch 6/28/02 3:13:59 PM Reply	Allah is to Muslims as _________ is to Christians. Christians profess a belief in God but the name of this god is not God. Then what is the name of the god of the Christians? The etymology of the word is anglo-saxon and is not tied intrinsically to the Christian God. The word "God" you mean. "A god", "my god", "their god", etc. But when used without a preceeding article ("a", "the", and so forth), "God" identifies the god of the Christians. A simple "proof" of this is the title of this post.
Post #43,826 by ChrisR 6/28/02 4:52:40 PM Reply	Allah is to Arabic Speakers as God is to English speakers The question you forward is nonsensical because you are phrasing it in one language, but using the terminology of a second language. For a [link\|http://www.submission.org/allah-god.html\|Muslim] person that speaks English, the words Allah and God are interchangeable. For the [link\|http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html\|Christian] speaker that does not necessarily speak Arabic, Allah is the Arabic term that is used for God. Hence, although the Christian will generally acknowledge that the Muslim believes in God, it's not likely that the English speaker will invoke Arabic terminology as it's not engrained into our cultural and religious history. So the answer to your question is simple. If the pledge were written in Arabic, it would say 'Under Allah'. If the pledge were written in English, it would say 'Under God'. So, from the outside it looks like you are asking whether it would be acceptable if the pledge were written in Arabic - which is probably not the case. The terms Allah and God are substitutable if one wishes to translate language and culture. But a pledge which is bent on nationalistic identity is probably not a place where cross-cultural boundaries are going to be explored to any significant extent.
Post #43,835 by Brandioch 6/28/02 5:34:28 PM Reply	Not quite. The question you forward is nonsensical because you are phrasing it in one language, but using the terminology of a second language. Really? Pomme Frites is to the French as _________ is to the British. "Nonsensical"? Hardly. Even though I'm mixing languages in the above example, it is still clear. For a Muslim person that speaks English, the words Allah and God are interchangeable. Negative. Ask a Muslim who/what Zeus is. You will NOT get "Zeus is Allah". For the Christian speaker that does not necessarily speak Arabic, Allah is the Arabic term that is used for God. True. But also incorrect. "Allah" is the name of the god of the Muslims. The name of the god of the Muslims is "Allah". The god the Muslims worship is "Allah". "Muslim" is not a language. "Muslim" is a religion. In Persian, the word for god is "xuda". A Persian who was a Muslim would worship the "xuda" called "Allah". (Note, the spellings and such are courtesy of a friend and they don't even use the same alphabet we do so it isn't an easy translation) The terms Allah and God are substitutable if one wishes to translate language and culture. This was what I was illustrating when I suggest altering the PoA to "One nation, under Allah". If "God" in that context was NOT meant to mean the god of the Christians, then such a substitution would not be unthinkable. But a pledge which is bent on nationalistic identity is probably not a place where cross-cultural boundaries are going to be explored to any significant extent. Agreed. But it goes even deeper than that. Christianity is part of the culture of the USofA. And the god of the Christians is named "God". So the PoA does reference the god of the Christians as opposed to a generic "god".
Post #43,848 by ChrisR 6/28/02 6:44:04 PM Reply	The question is nonsensical because you... ...are mixing language translation with religious identity. If the question were straightforward, it would be a simple matter of translation: Pomme Frites is to the Huguenot as _________ is to the Calvinist. That question wouldn't mix the concept of belief with language translation. But mixing language terminology with religious identity, you automatically stack the deck against a positive answer. Or put another way, God is to the Orthodox Jew as ___________ is to the Reformist Jew. or God is to the Baptist as ___________ is to the Catholic. Note, that we're using the same term in both questions, but they are nonsensical questions - e.g. the perception of God by the Baptist is quite distinct from the perception of the Catholic (although there is overlap). The Baptist and the Catholic will, at times, acknowledge that they both believe in God, but the nature of that god, and what that belief encompasses, are quite different. Negative. Ask a Muslim who/what Zeus is. You will NOT get "Zeus is Allah". More to the point, ask a Muslim if he believes in God? Since that's the word in question, I think it a more relevant question as to whether the capitalized English term of God is exclusively associated with the Christian religion. You seemed to have missed my point above. Let me explain it differently. The interpretation of the capitalized word God is a subjective term. When the Christian says they believe in God, they have a whole set of mental baggage that is associated with the term. When a Jew says they believe in God, they also have a specific idea that is somewhat different than the Christian. Same with the Muslim. My presumption is all three would agree that they believe in God (capitalized or not). When dealing with politics, one tries to carve out terminology which is pleasing to their electorate. In this case, the terminology (including the capitalization) is acceptable to almost any monotheistic religion. They can state the pledge without accepting the ultimate validity of each others religion. They are bound together by their belief in a god that is singular in being. Just as the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians can agree that they believe in Jesus, but disagree (sometimes violently) what it actually means to believe in the same. "Muslim" is a religion. Islam is a religion. A muslim is a follower of Mohamet. A Persian who was a Muslim would worship the "xuda" called "Allah". Or the person who was Muslim would worship Allah as their God? From a language translation standpoint, the difficulty presented is that Islam is both a mixture of Religion and Pan-Arabic culture. The term Allah roughly means God - roughly speaking because words, especially those of a religious nature, rarely, if ever, can be translated from one language into another without changing semantics. So the PoA does reference the god of the Christians as opposed to a generic "god". So you claim. Yes, God means one thing to Christians and quite another to Muslims. And, yes, the English language is mostly influenced by Christianity (even though Christianity itself is more mired in Greek and Latin as a matter of history).
Post #43,852 by Brandioch 6/28/02 8:13:49 PM Reply	No I'm not. The question is nonsensical because you... ...are mixing language translation with religious identity. No. English speaking Muslims still refer to "Allah". God is to the Orthodox Jew as ___________ is to the Reformist Jew. No. You're looking at different sects of the same religion. God is to the Baptist as ___________ is to the Catholic. Again, different sects, same religion. Do you have an example of different religions, same language? Because I know Muslims raise in the US as native "English" speakers who still refer to "Allah". Note, that we're using the same term in both questions, but they are nonsensical questions - e.g. the perception of God by the Baptist is quite distinct from the perception of the Catholic (although there is overlap). I'll disagree. The god is the same. The associated practices and which practice takes precedence is what varies. More to the point, ask a Muslim if he believes in God? But it is a monotheistic religion. They believe in one god. An example, certain Islamic fundamentalist groups hate us because we don't follow Allah. But our PoA and currency both clearly state that we are under "God". So, do they believe in "God"? No. If you define "God" as the all-powerful, omniscient god OF THE CHRISTIANS. Do they believe in "God"? Yes. There is no God but Allah. This discussion would be a lot easier if the Christians had a name for their god other than "God". So, asking someone if s/he believes in "God" is not enough to distinguish whether s/he is Muslim, Christian or Jew. Since that's the word in question, I think it a more relevant question as to whether the capitalized English term of God is exclusively associated with the Christian religion. The TERM is not. Just as "Jesus" is NOT exclusively associated with the Christian "Son of God". The interpretation of the capitalized word God is a subjective term. True. In a limited sense. Now, do you believe that Ike was refering to the god of the Muslims when he endorsed that change? Or do you believe he was refering to the god of the Christians? Just as having a sign that said "Jesus" in every classroom MIGHT be considered to be refering to some Mexican kid so it isn't "religious". My presumption is all three would agree that they believe in God (capitalized or not). Yes, they would. And there's a Mexican woman who says she loves Jesus. Of course, she means her son. And there's another woman who says she loves Jesus. She's the daughter-in-law of the first woman. And lots of ministers on TV talk about how they love Jesus. Yet each person means something different. But they all use the same words. My point is that, yes, you can stretch the words and build elabourate situations where it COULD mean something else. But it means what it was meant as. The god of the Christians. In this case, the terminology (including the capitalization) is acceptable to almost any monotheistic religion. If you split the terminology from the situation, yes, you're right. But that terminology in this situation does NOT refer to Allah or Yahweh or Zorastor or anyone but the god of the Christians. They can state the pledge without accepting the ultimate validity of each others religion. Yes. They can believe what they want to believe about what they're saying. Mental masturbation. By that same token, an atheist could say those words and, since there is no "God", saying that we are a nation under "God" is meaningless and therefore, free of any baggage. But it doesn't work like that. Just as the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical Christians can agree that they believe in Jesus, but disagree (sometimes violently) what it actually means to believe in the same. But I believe in Jesus. I've met him. I know where he lives. And someone can ask me if Jesus is cool and I can say "Yeah, Jesus is cool". Context. So you claim. Yes, God means one thing to Christians and quite another to Muslims. Yes. That is my claim. And I have yet to see anyone provide any support that Ike meant anything else. Now, what any theoretical person can bring himself to believe when uttering those words, the fact that people have a problem with swapping "Allah" for "God" provides enough support for my position. Yes, it would be using a word from another language. So what? It's not like it will be the FIRST time we've done so.
Post #43,857 by Ashton 6/28/02 9:08:28 PM Reply	I think it's as obvious as, what is meant when a Fundamentalist mouths the phrase, 'we' Love the sinner but Hate the sin. Yes, all can see that there is a theoretical 'difference' implicit: yet Acts speak Louder (and the judgmentalism is evident in any case) - and, we see the dripping sarcasm and hatred in the Believers' recitations. And sometimes in their fatal 'actions'. Shall we ignore Body Language too? Whatever the cavilling over nuance, and given the fact that even the word 'nuance' is apt to go way Overhead when used in a sentence today: This is STILL the Evident breach of any Wall of Separation intended: to keep All religious codewords out of Civil operations. Even token ones which imply a "Nation of Believers". THAT - the 'USA' ain't and never was. Ashton
Post #43,825 by Ashton 6/28/02 4:52:30 PM Reply	"it intentionally offends those who fall outside of this category". Indeed - at last the crux of the issue. And the mere "under God" addition of Ike's (politically-expedient or whatever, at the time): Is a very BIG Camel's nose inside the tent. ..As if there weren't already enough sanctimony around: without begging for more! Ashton
Post #44,046 by tablizer 7/1/02 12:43:38 AM Reply	"One nation under glowing spooky stuff" ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #44,197 by CRConrad 7/2/02 2:26:08 AM Reply	Yeah... Big glowing UFOs covered in OOP-turds, you mean? :-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!