01 Aug 09
Originally posted by FMFhe was the son of God, thats all that matters.
Fornication? Extra-marital sex? I only ask you because you are a self-professed Catholic. You have some private, dissident definition of sin?
I couldn't care less about whether or not he was a virgin (not that there is any reason to believe he wasn't).
You have some private, dissident definition of sin?
not necessarily.
01 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFPersonally? How do you figure? Have I called you names? Merely pointing out your obvious obtuseness, which becomes abundantly clear in your overreaching speculations. How is that personal? You posit absurdity masked as intellectual exploration. You expect to not be called out on it? So if your innefectual musings are dissected then it's personal and I have issues to sort out? That is truly laughable on your part. Methinks you simply run out of arguments real quickly because you failed to think through what you posited originally. You threw out a question, it gets answered, but becasue you do not like he answers then you have no further arguments, not that there would be any from such foolish original questions.
You seem to be taking this ever so personally. I hope things sort themselves out for you.
01 Aug 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoActually, it does render the usage of 'virgin' here appropriate. Of course, you can simply stipulate, idiosyncratically, that the primary or original definitions of terms are the only appropriate definitions, but this just indicates that you fail to understand that public languages are not static. Semantics is prescriptive, in that there are public standards for proper usage, but these standards can and do evolve. 'Water' for instance, did not always refer to H2O, since we used the term perfectly well prior to discovering facts about chemical composition. But it is certainly appropriate to use 'water' to refer to H2O now, which indicates that the semantics of public languages evolve. Since we all perfectly well understand what the original poster intended to communicate by the question, and since the term 'virgin' can and does commonly refer to both sexes, and has been used this way for almost 700 years, your insistence on a particular usage of 'virgin' is really just priggish self-righteousness.
That does no make the term correct. Virginity=maidenhead.
01 Aug 09
Originally posted by bbarrPriggish? Self righteous? Ha! You really imply people go around asking for glasses of H2O? So therefore rendering FMF's malaprop correct? My observation goes to the very heart of anti-religious postings. The very exactitude demanded demanded of religious people seems to not apply when raising absurdity that can be neither proven nor disproven. If idiosyncracy is at the heart of the question then it should be posited thus not an implied usage. Never forget that the term "virgin" has very specific religious/theological implications for Christians, especially Catholics. Jesus is never referred to as the virgin second person of the trinity. The Virgin Mary is the only one entitled to the term.
Actually, it does render the usage of 'virgin' here appropriate. Of course, you can simply stipulate, idiosyncratically, that the primary or original definitions of terms are the only appropriate definitions, but this just indicates that you fail to understand that public languages are not static. Semantics is prescriptive, in that there are public st ...[text shortened]... sistence on a particular usage of 'virgin' is really just priggish self-righteousness.
02 Aug 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI'm adundantly foolish am I? Utterly stupid as well?
Personally? How do you figure? Have I called you names?
The term 'virgin' can and does commonly refer to both sexes, and has been used this way for almost 700 years.
Your hysterical posts are baffling and rather trollish.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Aug 09
Originally posted by scacchipazzoDid you really read bbar's post? The basic thrust of it is that the meaning of a word is not bound up by etymology. Simply because 'virginity' had a specific connotation of female purity (i.e. it comes from the Latin 'virgo', meaning a maiden) does not require that it retain that definition forever. The common usage has expanded to refer to both genders. It would be equally ridiculous if I were to argue that your use of 'implication' is absurd since it derives from the Latin 'implicare' which means to tie up. Words change and acquire new meanings.
Priggish? Self righteous? Ha! You really imply people go around asking for glasses of H2O? So therefore rendering FMF's malaprop correct? My observation goes to the very heart of anti-religious postings. The very exactitude demanded demanded of religious people seems to not apply when raising absurdity that can be neither proven nor disproven. If idiosy ...[text shortened]... he virgin second person of the trinity. The Virgin Mary is the only one entitled to the term.
02 Aug 09
Originally posted by Conrau KBut like He said Jesus isn't referred to as virgin, but that doesn't mean He isn't one.
Did you really read bbar's post? The basic thrust of it is that the meaning of a word is not bound up by etymology. Simply because 'virginity' had a specific connotation of female purity (i.e. it comes from the Latin 'virgo', meaning a maiden) does not require that it retain that definition forever. The common usage has expanded to refer to both genders. It ...[text shortened]... rom the Latin 'implicare' which means to tie up. Words change and acquire new meanings.