Syne said:
Again, you are resorting to generalizing ALL concepts of god, even though you have already said:
Also, i am not sure why you would say that things people disagree about are sketchy, "taken collectively". -CG
Here you are directly using the differences between individual concepts to justify calling all of them "sketchy".
dude. i asked you what you meant. What type of usage you implied that was different from how i was applying it. I wasn't passing judgement on your phrasings and grammar, because i am not rarefied like some people seem to be. Don't use my question to you as some sort of proclamation i made. The fact that there are a hundred versions, doesn't make them sketchy, the lack of thoroughness and detail makes them sketchy to me. Also conceptions that have
internal contradictions can also be called sketchy.
You are the one who insists on an explicit question mark for anything to register as a question. And where did you get the idea that I thought you were criticizing anything? It is hard to imagine you would have trouble understanding the usage you were using yourself, as you have repeatedly used the collection of all concepts of god to call them sketchy. If that is not your point, why do you keep making it?
I have already explained that most certain concepts of god have very thorough theological explanations of any supposed internal contradictions.
they don't contradict at all. Did i say those people i talked to in church, are people who "go all the time"? No.
You just really cannot help but castrate your own argument, can you? You cannot both argue that church attendance generally increases certainty in a concept of god and that you just so happen to talk to more people in church whose concept is sketchy.
people that go all the time tend to have much more solid ideas of the details of God, yes or no? do you believe weekly and daily church goers have a more thoroughly defined concept of God or not?
By experience, not necessarily. Many regular church goers seem to get too accustom to being spoon fed to examine and affirm things for themselves. This is well-known, touted by most atheists, and born out in statistics:
Unless there is a poll which shows how many believe "god" is an alien civilization, nature, themselves, the best in all of us, the collective unconscious, the christian god loosely defined, or the christian God thoroughly defined, in detail, your denial of my point is empty. As I said, I am calling many conceptions of God, "sketchy", even among christians, and the fact that many have a "sketchy" concept may be a good or bad thing, i don't know. All of this stems from your denial of the fact that we may be applying the words "thoroughly" and "detailed", differenty, just like i said a long time back in this thread.
No, I am the only one of us who has provided ANY support of his argument. All you have done is deny it is applicable. You have made no substantial argument of you own. Here is more support of my argument:
* Survey question 22: "Even if you might not believe in God, based on your personal understanding, what do you think God is like?" Subjects could mark of one of five responses, from strongly agree to strongly disagree:
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Undecided | Disagree | Strongly disagree |
| A cosmic force in the universe | 29.8 | 28.1 | 14.5 | 10.4 | 17.3 |
| Removed from worldly affairs | 7.6 | 16.1 | 12.0 | 29.1 | 35.2 |
| Removed from my personal affairs | 8.1 | 12.8 | 10.4 | 31.0 | 37.7 |
| Concerned with the well-being of the world | 48.7 | 29.5 | 8.9 | 5.3 | 7.6 |
| Concerned with my personal well-being | 44.5 | 30.3 | 9.7 | 7.0 | 8.5 |
| Angered by human sin | 29.1 | 27.2 | 13.0 | 17.6 | 13.1 |
| Angered by my sins | 24.6 | 26.6 | 13.7 | 20.4 | 14.7 |
| Directly involved in worldly affairs | 27.8 | 22.7 | 14.4 | 19.7 | 15.3 |
| Directly involved in my affairs | 30.6 | 26.1 | 12.7 | 17.0 | 13.5 |
| A "He" | 25.8 | 17.8 | 29.4 | 9.7 | 17.2 |
-
http://www.religioustolerance.org/godnature.htm
You should notice that most of the highest percentages are in the "Strongly agree" or "Strongly disagree" columns. This would indicate a strong certainty in quite a few of the details of a concept of god. There is another poll on that site that is much more detailed with ALL of the highest percentages in the extreme responses.
Do you have anything to support your argument other than the denial you are projecting on me?
as to belief and action - As i predicted, this is not going anywhere. Nothing useful is being done talking about it.
Of course not, when you cannot manage to make one coherent point.
i quoted the multiple examples as addressing my point, i.e. that instructions were given. It is reasonable to assume that humans would, in practice, use the instructions as rules and methods, just as zen monks sit in certain postures and do certain things, although the point for Zen seems to be to go beyond categories.
It is not reasonable to assume things contrary to EVERY reference on the subject.
"should" and "ought" are not required, and are actually less demanding than the simple instruction.
here is a very very tough set of rules - leviticus -
7 If your grain offering is cooked in a pan, it is to be made of the finest flour and some olive oil. 8 Bring the grain offering made of these things to the Lord; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar. 9 He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 10 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the food offerings presented to the Lord. 11 ��Every grain offering you bring to the Lord must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in a food offering presented to the Lord. 12 You may bring them to the Lord as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13 Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings. 14 ��If you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the Lord, offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire. 15 Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering. -Leviticus 2
Note the multiple instructions presented that don't say should or ought, or anything else (just like valentinus' do not). Note the one use of the modifier "may". Note the use of shall is used when talking about a second person, and not used when instructing. All of this clearly shows that instructions do not need a modifier, just as i have been pointing out to you, so the ONLY part of your statement that makes any sense at all is inflection.
But this only proves my point about
english usage not requiring "should" or "ought".
As to the translation - the nasb uses the word "shall". Unless we go further and know the translations of valentinus, and the gospel of philip and other texts, we can't even start to talk about inflection. You and I, I mean.
And you have conveniently omitted the context, as given in Leviticus 1:
1 The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock.
Anything from the Lord is always considered prescriptive, just as a command from a human to a dog (like you already pointed out), and this is the major difference between the Christian and Gnostic texts, as Gnostics lend no credence to the rules of any demiurge. This is the emphasis or context that makes everything that follows normative. And you really should not be trying to refute a literal "should" or "ought", as you just got done saying your "do" was not literal. Unless you intend to employ a double standard that is. Or to take a page form your book, I never said prescriptive statements ALWAYS use such words as "should" or "ought".
pre�scrip�tive/priˈskriptiv/Adjective
f or relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method.
My point on this is that we may not be sure of the "inflection" used in all the cases of Gnostic practice, but if we are going to think rationally about a religious practice observed by humans, and apply our knowledge of humanity to them at all, many of the gnostics were quite likely imposing a method, even if it was only by social pressure or cultural idealism.
Completely unsupported. By guess and by golly seem to be the standard of your reasoning skills. "May not be sure" is no argument to the contrary. Seriously, go read up on gnostic beliefs.
was thinking about the fact that we don't have the greek versions of the nag hammadi stuff and came up with this from the greek version of gospel of thomas -
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/thomas_poxy.htm
Btw, most Christians consider Jesus part of the trinity that is god, so commands from him are taken as equally prescriptive as those from god.
