Originally posted by twhitehead
A definition is an explanation of what a word means. When you give a definition for word x as y, you are saying that when you use word x in future, what you will mean is y. If I define planets as all bodies larger than a given radius and orbiting a star, then some bodies will fit this definition and some will not. When I say 'planet' you will no what I am referring to. If I change the definition, I will change what I am referring to and the bodies that match that definition may change. But at no point will my definition be true or false the only question is whether or not it matches a given body.
Where definition[] and object(description). Is the following a fair representation of the paragraph above?
Planet[ body+size>1 | Earth(body+size=10), Pluto(body+size=2)] ----> Planet[ body+size>2 | Earth(body+size=10)] , Pluto(body+size=2)
Originally posted by twhitehead
When I give a description of a noun x as y, I am saying that all x's have the properties y. So for example if I describe the earth as flat, I am stating that an object named Earth is flat. If the earth is not flat my description is wrong. If on the other hand I defined the Earth as flat, then the body of rock you are currently standing on, would not be the Earth. But my definition would not be wrong. It would just be non-standard and likely to lead to confusion.
Your definition of the Earth above can't be stated Earth[ body+shape=flat |] because you are also leaving out another part of the current definition.
Earth[ body+shape=flat+we are on |]
We are on, is part of our definition of Earth.
If you change the definition of earth from Earth[ body+shape=spherical+ we are on|] ----> Earth[ body+shape=flat+ we are on|] you have created an incorrect definition.
If you take us off, Earth[ body+shape=spherical+ we are on|] ----> Earth[ body+shape=flat+ we are not on|] then you haven't simply changed the shape and moved the object we are on out of the definition but created a definition the object we are on has never been in.
"We are on", is not so simple. It is not "we are currently on". It has always been a part of the definition of earth. It can't be excluded without creating an incorrect definition.
If you are saying that the definition: [body+shape=spherical+ we are on|] still stands and you have a new definition Earth[ body+shape=flat |] Then you are not defining. You are renaming and then defining, recycling the name earth.
Originally posted by FMFYou were given a working definition of the term "ambivalent," which included many of the same concepts as found in the term "confused" and which also very closely aligned with the term "conflict."
jospehw's post? josephw hadn't even listened to the podcast - and probably still hasn't. Have you listened to it yet? What "conflict" or "no conflict" are you referring to?
I have absolutely zero interest in listening to the podcast.
This particular noun, atheist, does not require an adjective for further clarification.
Despite the insistence by some aggressive proponents otherwise, the word as originally defined is a concept pretty clear in nearly everyone's mind who hears the term: they reject the idea of God/gods.
Yeah!
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Atheism" also means a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Despite the insistence by some aggressive proponents otherwise, the word as originally defined is a concept pretty clear in nearly everyone's mind who hears the term: they reject the idea of God/gods.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm just reporting on how it is used by native speakers of English. What you want to accept or don't want to accept does not have any impact on what speakers of English mean when they use the word.
Ah, so I see you align yourself with that group who wish to add something to the definition which every one else accepts.
Noted.
Originally posted by JerryHIs this gobbledy gook meant to impress?
Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]A definition is an explanation of what a word means. When you give a definition for word x as y, you are saying that when you use word x in future, what you will mean is y. If I define planets as all bodies larger than a given radius and orbiting a star, then some bodies will fit this definition and some will not. Wh ...[text shortened]... flat |] Then you are not defining. You are renaming and then defining, recycling the name earth.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What exactly precludes a true disciple of Jesus from having existed or being able to exist?
It is not the teaching of Jesus that I said precludes that. It is your interpretation of the words of Jesus in John 8, which I think are designed to preclude that.
IE. "No true disciple of Jesus is ever in need of confession of sins."
That is not Jesus at all. That is what you seem to want to derive from John 8:24-36.
I am open to being shown I misunderstand your explanation. But this is how it comes across. And I have heard it from you many times. You seem to refine and reinforce it whenever you bring it up again.
But we can find out now if I misunderstand you:
1. Do you believe "true disciples" of Jesus have ever existed ?
2.) Do you believe "true disciples" of Jesus could be in the process of maturing? That means the freedom that are being brought into is life long matter, ever growing and increasing.
3.) Were the recipients of the letter of FIrst John true disciples of Jesus ? They were told to confess their sins and that if they said they did not have sin they are deceiving themselves ?
" If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)
True disciples of Jesus would not be self deceived to believe that they never sin. True disciples of Jesus would realize that the road to increased freedom is with deeper and deeper confession.
Do you agree? Or do you think John 8:24-36 proves any believers needing to confess their sins hoping in God's faithfulness and righteousness for cleansing are not "true disciples" ?
Jesus is quite clear that His true disciples will be freed from committing sin. From what I can surmise, it's because you don't believe Jesus.
Yes, eventually this is absolutely our hope as the New Testament promises. This is a process of sanctification.
If the true disciples of Jesus are not in the process of conformation, transformation, and sanctification then there have been no true disciples of Jesus ever. For none are instantaneously perfected.
I wrote the following:
In John 8:31-34, Jesus clearly states that His true disciples, will know the TRUTH, will no longer commit sin, and will "live in the house forever". Those who continue to commit sin will not "live in the house forever".
So Jesus prays that the disciples would be PERFECTED (John 17:23). And to be PERFECTED is a process.
I think your treatment of John 8:24-36 seems designed to nullify the process of His salvation. At the moment I am convinced I have misunderstood your analysis of that passage, I will retract my critique of it as in error.
But that doesn't seem to happen. What seems is that periodically you reinforce the analysis.
The above simply reiterates the following in about as straight-forward manner as possible:
John 8
31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”... 34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.35“The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
A picture from the Old Testament typology is helpful here. In the Feast of the Passover, the redemption of God was celebrated. It was followed by the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It was to be kept seven days. This means throughout the whole rest of your life. Seven days mean for the redeemed people's whole life.
No leaven was to be seen in their house. Leaven signifies sins. And that no leaven was to be SEEN means that all leaven of which they became AWARE was to be eliminated.
It is a fact of life that the awareness of sin increased throughout the growth of spiritual life. More and more light reaches more and more of one's being.
The Feast of Unleavened Bread therefore has to do with the lifelong activity of the redeemed one dealing with sins as he become aware of them.
I have to suspend discussion immediately.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I know. I look at it in horror myself. Please understand it's in the rough and I need to be detailed enough so that if I'm thinking wrong it can be exactly pointed out. I'll try to rephrase, so to speak.
Is this gobbledy gook meant to impress?
Let "earth" represent a dictionary entry and earth[] a definition. Let Earth() represent the object we instinctively know as our world. Let "we are on" represent where humanity came into being and continues.
earth[planet+we are on | Earth()]
The () part of Earth() could list any properties of "Earth" necessary to couple Earth() to earth[] or help prove Earth() is an element of earth[].
Here is a possible old definition using the entry "earth": earth[Very large but not endless flat area+ we are on| Earth()]
Elements of a definition have to be very carefully chosen because anything that would logically follow from an element is also in the definition.
The object Earth() does not change if we describe it wrong. The definition earth[Very large but not endless flat area+ we are on|] can not rightfully contain any object. There is no object that can ever match this definition.
A definition like this was. It was incorrect. I think it was most incorrect because the definition assigned properties that were not in the object description. After all, who ever saw an edge? How long did this impede our understanding of universal gravitation, circumnavigation, the other bodies in our solar system, our place in the Universe?
This is the way that I'm thinking. It may be incorrect.
I didn't make one point clear enough in the above.
Objects are whether we say they are or not. They have the properties they have and nothing more whether we say they do or not. We can never put anything into the list of properties an object has.
When we make a definition and we put an element in it we make the claim that that element exists in the object we are defining. I say element because an element can be a simple property, another definition or what logically follows from them and maybe more.
We can never incorrectly describe an object independent from a definition. This keeps us focused on what we are doing. This claim must go only one way. Letting claims go both ways may be why you are saying that definitions can never be wrong?
Originally posted by JerryHIt is incorrect. You are still confusing definition and description.
This is the way that I'm thinking. It may be incorrect.
A noun is a very special form of definition in that it is defined merely as referring to a particular thing (or group of things etc). The description of that thing is not part of the definition.
So for example, the word 'earth' is defined as referring to a particular thing. We both know what that thing is. I could describe it to you, but doing so would not be part of the definition - only part of my description. If my description is wrong, that would not change what thing I am referring to when I use the word 'earth'.
Originally posted by josephwInteresting. So you quote Jesus and then imply you are thinking for yourself?
Ambivalent
—adjective
having mixed feelings about someone or something; being unable to choose between two (usually opposing) courses of action: The whole family was ambivalent about the move to the suburbs. She is regarded as a morally ambivalent character in the play.
Psychology. of or pertaining to the coexistence within an individual of positive and ...[text shortened]... ectual elite aided by their media lackeys followed by automatons unable to think for themselves.
Originally posted by FMFSo, your only "religion" is that there "may" be a God, but you don't know Him, nor even who He is.
I have answered it head on numerous occasions. Here is a copy paste of a recent occasion:
"I am a non-Christian/former Christian. Indeed, I am not a religionist of any kind. I don't see myself as an atheist because I feel an unclear and inexplicable instinct that there is a God.
I have no specific "beliefs" rooted in this instinctive belief ~ which perhap ...[text shortened]... amazing capacities of the human spirit which ~ perhaps ~ no one knows for sure ~ is God given."
Might as well be atheist.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs far as I know, when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior, I did not have my brain, nor my free will, removed. I expect most Christians see no problem with following Christ and having our own mind. The two are not exclusive by any means. In fact, accepting Christ requires free will.
Interesting. So you quote Jesus and then imply you are thinking for yourself?