It isn't big money nor is it a primary source of income, but it may be worth the time. $136 is easily beer money for a month, depending where you live. Or it could be redirected to his favourite charity. Either way, why not?
Fair point, and it may also be true that the window warps my message in such a way that what I am writing is not what you are reading. The problem being, pedantic as a philosopher can get, they eventually have to get down to the concept of shared experience. The shared experience may not be an objective reality, or necessarily perceived in the same way, but the reactions of various apparent minds to such are perhaps consistent enough to form a basis for "meaningful" dialog. The meaning isn't critical, it is your perception of my reaction to the meaning that matters. In essence we all have discussions not necessarily with ourselves, but with our perhaps warped perceptions of others. That is perhaps a distinction worth making.
Apparently. Since the only way you could possibly legitimately define what I maintain(apart from what I have stated) is if I were a figment of your imagination. Since you feel it appropriate to do so, it therefore follows that you believe I am merely such an illusion(or are merely holding contradictory viewpoints, or perhaps a third option I haven't seen? I will assume the first lacking further information, as it is the most complimentary answer I can find). Thus, from your perspective I have no mind, and thus my mind attaching itself to something would be a fairly nonsensical statement (unless we grant that an illusionary mind is functionally equivalent to a real one which is another debate).
The difference is, I happen to understand "i kan reed"s point of view and argument and I see why he makes it. I was surprised though by the fact that he did not realise that I do not hold quite the position his argument is effective against, which resulted in the disconnect and rather boring and predictable responses from him. I don't really know what your point is, however. Or viewpoint for that matter.
If only there were some way to interpret documents within their literary and contemporary cultural context then we wouldn't be required to misinterpret them to cover up our own insecurities. Sigh....
There is none that I know of. However Paul suggests some of the OT can be taken metaphorically. To understand what parts can be taken that way, you need to start analyzing the Jewish culture and context as well as literary context. No idea what the other AC is talking about
No, I don't hold to that, though "i kan reed" appears to have a different version of events to me. I suppose this in itself illustrates that this could be all an illusion, since we all appear to have different versions of the discussion, but I maintain "I kan reed" is having a discussion with himself. He does not appear to be involving me at all.
I am not sure you understand what I have asserted. Perhaps this will help. I asserted that I am a pedantic philosopher and that the sky is not always blue. I have been corrected on the latter, but hold to the former. Anything else is just stuff you read into what I wrote. I suggest you have a look back to see for yourself. But I think you're stuck in your One True Argument (tm)), which you are likely to have with or without me, regardless of my position or whether or not we actually disagree. Once again/. fails to surprise me.
I was referring to American Christianity, not Americans in general. perhaps that is the point. Christianity is too busy reacting against such things to go batshit crazy.
Southern Africa. The region including Zimbabwe (because of it's troubles people are more likely to buy their BS) and South Africa. Botswana is less obsessed(being more obsessed with beer and cattle), and Mozambique is too busy trying to rekindle their revolution to notice much. If you ever go to Africa, you will realise that it is culturally very different from what you may be used to. Also, that people here sometimes have an unhealthy obsession with western culture. Joyce Meyer came to Zimbabwe once. Had a huge concert filled with people and sold them the same BS you find in "The Secret". And they bought it. Kind of sad really.
What position? The trouble with people on slashdot(I love generalizations, don't you?), is they learn one argument. Then they go through it step by step to an inevitable conclusion, never considering the possibility that their argument may not be relevant to the discussion. Tell me, as a matter of curiosity, what do you think my position is?
You could check the objective reality of a slashdot user natasrevol (Satan Lover backwards, how droll) if you really desired to. But your reluctance to is telling.
Quite simple - the parts that are deemed metaphorical are not random. There exists a rare and endangered school of thought that seeks to take the bible in it's literary, cultural and historical context.
Oh, there are mega churches and really messed up Nigerian "pastors" in Africa. However, they don't normally get to be this loud. I suppose it it is possible that they are a ticking timebomb. I suppose, to answer myself, it's that American culture is insidious and seeps out of your borders. The good the bad and the ugly in one slimy mix...
I am the most pedantic of philosophers. The question is not whether I want to go down that road, it is do you? Also, see above. The sky is actually blue at night.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I pay R50 for 6 beers. Decent beer too.
It isn't big money nor is it a primary source of income, but it may be worth the time. $136 is easily beer money for a month, depending where you live. Or it could be redirected to his favourite charity. Either way, why not?
$136 in 30 days or so? Could add up to quite a tidy sum over time...
http://www.supersonicclub.co.z...
Fair point, and it may also be true that the window warps my message in such a way that what I am writing is not what you are reading. The problem being, pedantic as a philosopher can get, they eventually have to get down to the concept of shared experience. The shared experience may not be an objective reality, or necessarily perceived in the same way, but the reactions of various apparent minds to such are perhaps consistent enough to form a basis for "meaningful" dialog. The meaning isn't critical, it is your perception of my reaction to the meaning that matters. In essence we all have discussions not necessarily with ourselves, but with our perhaps warped perceptions of others. That is perhaps a distinction worth making.
Apparently. Since the only way you could possibly legitimately define what I maintain(apart from what I have stated) is if I were a figment of your imagination. Since you feel it appropriate to do so, it therefore follows that you believe I am merely such an illusion(or are merely holding contradictory viewpoints, or perhaps a third option I haven't seen? I will assume the first lacking further information, as it is the most complimentary answer I can find). Thus, from your perspective I have no mind, and thus my mind attaching itself to something would be a fairly nonsensical statement (unless we grant that an illusionary mind is functionally equivalent to a real one which is another debate).
The difference is, I happen to understand "i kan reed"s point of view and argument and I see why he makes it. I was surprised though by the fact that he did not realise that I do not hold quite the position his argument is effective against, which resulted in the disconnect and rather boring and predictable responses from him. I don't really know what your point is, however. Or viewpoint for that matter.
Hence the probe had to hibernate.
If only there were some way to interpret documents within their literary and contemporary cultural context then we wouldn't be required to misinterpret them to cover up our own insecurities. Sigh....
The Anglicans too, though to a lesser extent. They seem on the whole fairly balanced. I get along quite well with Anglicans this side anyway.
Trouble is, Catholicism also contains 2000 years of baggage. But yeah, it is a lot closer than modern TV evangelism.
There is none that I know of. However Paul suggests some of the OT can be taken metaphorically. To understand what parts can be taken that way, you need to start analyzing the Jewish culture and context as well as literary context. No idea what the other AC is talking about
No, I don't hold to that, though "i kan reed" appears to have a different version of events to me. I suppose this in itself illustrates that this could be all an illusion, since we all appear to have different versions of the discussion, but I maintain "I kan reed" is having a discussion with himself. He does not appear to be involving me at all.
I am not sure you understand what I have asserted. Perhaps this will help. I asserted that I am a pedantic philosopher and that the sky is not always blue. I have been corrected on the latter, but hold to the former. Anything else is just stuff you read into what I wrote. I suggest you have a look back to see for yourself. But I think you're stuck in your One True Argument (tm)), which you are likely to have with or without me, regardless of my position or whether or not we actually disagree. Once again /. fails to surprise me.
Well, I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. Your altitude, weather conditions, pollution, etc. But that is kind of the point I suppose.
I was referring to American Christianity, not Americans in general. perhaps that is the point. Christianity is too busy reacting against such things to go batshit crazy.
Southern Africa. The region including Zimbabwe (because of it's troubles people are more likely to buy their BS) and South Africa. Botswana is less obsessed(being more obsessed with beer and cattle), and Mozambique is too busy trying to rekindle their revolution to notice much. If you ever go to Africa, you will realise that it is culturally very different from what you may be used to. Also, that people here sometimes have an unhealthy obsession with western culture. Joyce Meyer came to Zimbabwe once. Had a huge concert filled with people and sold them the same BS you find in "The Secret". And they bought it. Kind of sad really.
What position? The trouble with people on slashdot(I love generalizations, don't you?), is they learn one argument. Then they go through it step by step to an inevitable conclusion, never considering the possibility that their argument may not be relevant to the discussion. Tell me, as a matter of curiosity, what do you think my position is?
You should see how the people here idolize the Tod Bently's and Joyce Meyer's of America...
You could check the objective reality of a slashdot user natasrevol (Satan Lover backwards, how droll) if you really desired to. But your reluctance to is telling.
Quite simple - the parts that are deemed metaphorical are not random. There exists a rare and endangered school of thought that seeks to take the bible in it's literary, cultural and historical context.
Surely there are sane Christians somewhere within your area? Have you tried the more orthodox churches?
I did not say anything. Another entity who may or may not be a figment of your imagination did. Try to keep up.
Oh, there are mega churches and really messed up Nigerian "pastors" in Africa. However, they don't normally get to be this loud. I suppose it it is possible that they are a ticking timebomb. I suppose, to answer myself, it's that American culture is insidious and seeps out of your borders. The good the bad and the ugly in one slimy mix...
I am the most pedantic of philosophers. The question is not whether I want to go down that road, it is do you? Also, see above. The sky is actually blue at night.
Apparently you are correct. Well played.